28 MDERAL Rnronma.
Brevity in pleading is very desirable in criminal cases, and unneces-
sary prolixity in the manner of statement should be carefully avoided`;
but every matter legally essential to constitute the offense must be so
definitely alleged as to be clearly intelligible. The want of specific aver-
ment cannot be supplied by implication; It is not waived by the fail-
ure of the defendant to avail himself of a demurrer, or a motion to quash,
and it is not cured after verdict by any United States statute of jeof-
ails. t There are many non-essential matters that are often found in in-
dictments that may be regarded as surplusage, while there are others
that must be proved as alleged, or there will be a fatal variance on the
trial. ‘
A; person indicted for crime has a constitutional right " to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation/’ by having the offense, and
the facts that constitute it, plainly and fully alleged in the indictment,
so that he may have a reasonable opportunity of introducing evidence,
and making defense before a jury that can investigate the facts, and a
court that can see whether the facts alleged constitute the crime charged.
Every indictment should show that an offense has been committed, and I
how committed, so that the defendant may have all the privileges humanely
accorded by law to all persons accused of crime,—a motion to quash
. the indictment, a demurrer to the indictment, a fair trial before a well-
informed jury, a motion in arrest of judgment, a writ of error, and full
security against a second prosecution for the same oH'ense.
In the case U. S. v. Oruikshcmk, 92 U. S. 542, Chief Justice WAIT};
announced in clear, precise, and comprehensive terms, the requisites of
a good and sufficient indictment, as settled by many adjudications; but
I deem it unnecessary to quote the language so carefully and accurately
employed, and so easily accessible to thelegal profession;
In some cases words spoken are acts sumcient to constitute an attempt
to commit a crime, if they are of such a character as to be well calcu-
lated and adaptedto accomplish the crime intended. Thus, threats of
immediate personal violence, made against a. reasonably prudent and
firm officer of the law, while in the discharge of hislegal duty, well cal-
culated to intimidate him, and make him desist from further effort to
execute the mandate of the law, if they are unsuccessful, constitute the
offense of an attempt to obstruct, hinder, or resist the execution of legal
process. ‘ » · r
' As such threatening words do not constitute the gist of the offense,
they need not be set forth with particularity and accuracy in an indict-
ment. The substance and purport will be sufficient. A general allega-
tion of verbal threats of personal injury would be sustained by proof of
any words of the defendant calculated to show a purpose of immediate
violence if the unlawful demands of the wrong-doer are not complied
with by the officer.
There are many cases where a wrongful act is alleged in an indictment,
and the evidence relied on to prove the criminal intention of the wrong-
doer consists of a series of facts of a kindred nature, constituting but `
one offense. It is not necessary,‘in such cases, that each fact should be