
    Commonwealth v. William Tanner.
    Criminal Law — Sufficiency of Indictment. Robbery.
    To demand the money, goods chattels, etc., of another by menace with a felonious intent to rob, or to commit robbery, is sufficient to constitute the crime under the statute, without a further description.
    Robbery — Indictment.
    To constitute the crime of robbery, the property taken must be of some value certain, that must appear in the indictment.
    Same.
    “Money” or “currency” are judicially known to be of value and an indictment charging the taking of same, is sufficient.
    APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.
    June 9, 1869.
   Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Appellee was indicted in the Kenton circuit court for an assault with intent to rob. After a trial and verdict of guilty by the jury, he moved the court to arrest the judgment and dismiss the indictment, both of said motions were sustained, and the Commonwealth has appealed.

The indictment was found under section 2, article 5, chapter 28, 1 Revised Statutes, 881, which reads as follows:

“If any person with an offensive weapon, or instrument, shall unlawfully or maliciously assault, or shall by menace, or in or by, any forcible or violent manner demand any money, goods, or chattels, bond, bill, or will, or other evidences of right or anything of or from any person with a felonious intent to rob, or to commit robbery upon such person, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one or more than two years.”

The motions, as we assume from the argument, offered on behalf of appellee were sustained,

1. Because a precise description of the personal property is not given, of which it is alleged appellee intended to rob Maloney. It is charged in the indictment that appellee did on a day named before the finding of the same, unlawfully and maliciously with intent to commit a robbery on the person of Gerald Maloney, in a forcible and violent manner demand of him money and currency, notes, bonds and other personal property of him, said, Maloney then, and there being on his person, and then and there by menaces, and by putting in fear, feloniously, unlawfully and maliciously intending to rob him of his money, currency, notes and other personal property as aforesaid.

To demand the money, goods, chattels, etc., of another by menace with a felonious intent to rob, or to commit robbery, is sufficient to constitute the crime under the statute, without a further description, or designating the value of the personal property which may be the subject of the robbery, it must be of some value certainly that must appear in the indictment, and as it is judicially known that money and currency are of value, although the amount may be small, still whatever is money is of value, and as the indictment charges that appellee did feloniously, unlawfully and maliciously intend by menace, etc., to rob said Maloney of money, currency, etc., on his person, the property was sufficiently described.

The description contained in the indictment is precisely the same as that given in the statute defining the offense.

2. The facts alleged in the indictment are sufficient to show the intent to take and carry away the property, and therefore it was unnecessary to aver an intention on the part of appellee to “to steal, take and carry it in so many words away.” And of necessity must have been against the will of' the owner of the property. ' The acts alleged as constituting the offense, are the same as "those named in the statute, and are described in its precise language.

But we regard the question involved in this appeal adjudicated in the analogous case of Taylor against Commonwealth 3 Bush, 508.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to overrule the motion in arrest of judgment and to overrule the motion to dismiss the indictment.  