Dantz v. State

There are three counts in the indictment against the appellants. The first two charge them with having committed a misdemeanor jointly with one David W» Carpenter, and the third makes a charge against David WCarpeuter alone.

It is insisted that the appellants’ motion to quash, upon the-ground that there was a misjoinder of defendants, should have been sustained. We think otherwise. The first two counts charged the defendants jointly, and described a joint offence, and were therefore good as against all of the defendants. It is quite well settled that a motion to quash addressed to an entire…