Kinningham v. State

This case is here for the second time— Kinningham v. State, 119 Ind. 332. When it was here before, the appellant’s contention was, that the indictment was bad, because it did not state the facts constituting the crime of an attempt to commit arson, and this contention we sustained. The point is made, on the indictment before us on this appeal, that the statute does not prescribe any penalty for an attempt to commit arson, and we are reluctantly driven to sustain the appellant’s position on this question.

The statute is confused and lame. R. S. 1881, section 1927. The offence, really defined,…