State v. Lissota

The only question in this case is whether the verdict, “we, the jury, find Luke Lissota guilty of burglary as charged,” is responsive to the bill of information, charging him with the crime of breaking and entering a railroad car, with intent to steal. The crime is defined and denounced in section 2 of Act 47 bf 1890. The issue is presented by a bill of exceptions taken to the overruling of a motion in arrest of judgment.

It can hardly be disputed that, if the foreman of the jury, in writing the verdict, had omitted the words “of burglary,” and had thus written the verdict, “We, the jury, find…