State v. Haist
Supreme Court of Kansas
Appeal from Jackson District Court. At the March term, 1893, Barbra Haist was indicted for violations of the prohibitory liquor law. On March 31, 1893, the defendant filed her plea in abatement, in which she claimed that her name is “Barbara” Haist, and not “Barbra” Haist, as spelled in the indictment. To this plea the plaintiff filed a demurrer, claiming that the indictment should not be quashed for the reason that the name “Barbara” is spelled “Barbra” in said indictment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson District Court. At the March term, 1893, Barbra Haist was indicted for violations of the prohibitory liquor law. On March 31, 1893, the defendant filed her plea in abatement, in which she claimed that her name is “Barbara” Haist, and not “Barbra” Haist, as spelled in the indictment. To this plea the plaintiff filed a demurrer, claiming that the indictment should not be quashed for the reason that the name “Barbara” is spelled “Barbra” in said indictment. On the hearing of the plea in abatement and demurrer, the court sustained the plea, and quashed the indictment. Of this…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
AlleN, J.:
The defendant was indicted by the grand jury in Jackson county, and charged in 13 counts with divers violations of the prohibitory law. She was arrested, and thereafter filed her plea in abatement, alleging that her name is “Barbara,” not “Barbra.” The court sustained the plea in abatement and quashed the indictment. This was error. The names are idem sonans. The mere omission of the letter “a,” which, in correctly pronouncing the name “Barbara,” has but a very obscure sound, is too trifling an error in spelling to warrant the ruling of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Blake v. DunnSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
- Harrell v. NeefSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
- State v. GorhamUtah Supreme Court · 1937