
    *The Commonwealth v. George Dove. Second Case.
    Criminal Law — Prosecutor—Evidence.—What is sufficient evidence of one being: the prosecutor, and liable for costs.
    Same — Same—Parol Evidence. — After verdict, the prosecutor cannot be allowed to shew, by parol evidence, that he was called on by the Grand Jury, and did not voluntarily grive the Information.
    The defendant was presented at the Superior Court of Rockingham, for retailing spirituous liquors, &c. “ on the Information of Philip Stultz.” Having failed to shew cause, an Information was regularly filed against him, describing the offence as in the last case, but committed on the 20th January. At the foot of the Information, are these words : “ This Information is filed by the order of Court, on the Presentment of the Grand Jury. Briscoe G. Baldwin, Attorney for the Commonwealth.” An issue being' made up, the cause was continued at the costs of the prosecutor, till the next Term, and on the motion of the defendant, it was ordered, that this prosecution be dismissed, unless Philip Stultz, who is named as a prosecutor, give sufficient security with the Clerk of this Court, within sixty days from this time, for the payment of all such costs as may be awarded the said defendant. That security was given according to the rule. On the trial, the jury found for the defendant. It was then ruled, that Philip Stultz, the alleged prosecutor, shew cause at the next Term, why a judgment for the costs should not be rendered against him. At the next Term, the Court adjourned to the General Court the following matters of Law. 1. Whether, from the proceedings in this case, Philip Stultz is the prosecutor, and liable to pay the costs of the Defendant, although he is not named at the foot of the Information. 2. If, from the proceedings, he should be deemed the prosecutor, and liable as aforesaid, ought the Court to hear parol testimony to prove that he was called on by the Grand Jury, and did not voluntarily go before them to give information ?
    
      
      See monographic note on “Pines and Costs in Criminal Cases” appended to Pifer v. Com., 14 Graft. 710.
    
   PER CURIAM.

“The Court doth decide, by the unanimous opinion of the Judges present, that from the proceedings in this case, Philip Stultz is prosecutor, and liable to pay the costs of the defendant, notwithstanding he is not named ht the foot of the Information, it'appearing sufficiently *by the Presentment, and other proceedings in the cause, that he was the person who instituted the prosecution ; and that it was too late after verdict rendered, for the prosecutor to shew, by parol testimony, that he was called on by the Grand Jury, and did not voluntarily go before them to give them information.

Sote (In edition of 1858). — This subject is now to be found, very clearly put down, in 1 Bev. Code of 1819, ch. 169, § 45, 46, 47.  