United States v. Herbert
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
There were two indictments against the defendant. The first (Na. 176,) was for a simple assault and battery at common law upon one John Sybert. The other for the same assault and battery, in the same words, with this addition, “ with intent him the said John then and there to kill,” “ and against the form of the statute in such case provided.”
Read the full summary
There were two indictments against the defendant. The first (Na. 176,) was for a simple assault and battery at common law upon one John Sybert. The other for the same assault and battery, in the same words, with this addition, “ with intent him the said John then and there to kill,” “ and against the form of the statute in such case provided.” The two indictments were found on the same day, and tried on the same day, and the defendant was found guilty on both, whereupon Mr. Key, the attorney for the United States, entered a nolle prosequi, with the leave of the Court, upon the indictment for…
1Opinion of the CourtCranch, C. J.
This is an indictment for assault and battery with intent to kill one John Sybert.
The defendant’s counsel have moved in arrest of judgment,
1. Because there was pending at the same time another indictment, charging it as a simple assault and battery at common law, both indictments having been found at the same time, and tried at the same time, by the same jury, who found the defendant guilty upon both, at the same time.
These facts do not appear in the record of the ease, in which the defendant was found guilty of a battery with intent to kill; and therefore are no ground for arresting the…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Ward v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
- Logan v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Lacefield v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
- Bonnafee v. Ira E. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- State v. CollyerNevada Supreme Court · 1883
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.