Ford v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The sufficiency of the indictment is attacked upon the ground that it was indefinite. This is the language used:

“Did then and there unlawfully possess equipment for the manufacture of liquor capable of producing intoxication, to-wit, whiskey.”

Appellant, through his counsel, presents an interesting argument, showing thought and research, insisting that the indictment offends against the Bill of -Rights embraced in Art. 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution, wherein it is said that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to demand…