
    The State v. Martin Killet.
    The technical accuracy of an .indictment is not required in a warrant of commitment; it is sufficient, if it appear on the face of the warrant, that an authority is given to arrest and detain the prisoner on some charge, or on some statement of facts, amounting, in the judgment of the magistrate, to a charge of a criminal nature.
    A magistrate may commit for an offence, without an information either on oath or in writing, if satisfied that there is sufficient ground for suspicion; but if it appear, that the only foundation for the charge is the affidavit of one under sentence of death for forgery, and therefore legally incompetent as a witness, the prisoner will be discharged on bis own recognizance. The prosecution however will not be quashed.
    Before Mr. Justice Earle, at Laurens, February Term, 1831.
    The defendant was in custody trader a warrant of commitment, for “ passing a counterfeit bank note, knowing it to be such,” which had been issued against him upon the affidavit of one Benjamin H. Tutt, a felon convict, and under sentence of death for forgery. He now applied to be discharged, and to have the proceedings against him quashed, on the grounds, first, that the offence was not sufficiently set forth in the warrant; and, secondly, that the prosecutor was legally incompetent as a witness, and therefore his affidavit, and the warrant issued upon it were mere nullities.
    Earle, J. The insufficiency of the form of the warrant in charging the offence cannot avail. It cannot be expected, nor is it necessary, that a magistrate, in framing a warrant, should state the offence with the same technical accuracy, that is required in an indictment. It is sufficient if it appear on its face, that an authority is given to arrest on some charge, or on some statement of facts, which, in the judgment of the magistrate, amounts to a charge of a criminal nature. The charge here, is that the prisoner passed a counterfeit bank note, knowing it to be such, which is considered quite enough.
    The other ground, of the incompetency of the prosecutor, is more questionable. The legal incompetency of such a person to be a witness in any case, and even to take an oath, except on incidental matters necessary for defence, is clear enough as a general principle. And yet I find it no where laid down, that he shall not be competent to originate a prosecution. I do not regard it as indispensable, that the information for a warrant should be on oath; nor, if on oath, that it should be in writing; although both are usual and proper. I think a warrant would be legal, if issued on such grounds of information as might satisfy the justice, without oath. And if the information on oath and in writing had not accompanied the warrant in the present case, I should not have felt myself at liberty to call on the justice for the grounds on which he proceeded. He had jurisdiction of the subject matter; he was himself satisfied that there was ground of suspicion: and I have not the right of hearing an appeal from his decision, or of setting aside his act. But inasmuch as he has chosen to exhibit the grounds of his proceeding, I am permitted to judge of their sufficiency, so far as to determine whether there is good cause to detain the prisoner in actual confinement. Exercising therefore, the powers of the Court on the subject of bail, and perceiving that the only foundation of the charge is the oath of one pot competent to give evidence, the prisoner ought not to be detained in confinement; for, at the utmost, it furnishes ground of but light suspicion. But I conceive that a prosecution is legally instituted for a specific, substantive offence, which may be prosecuted, and on which the prosecutor may yet give evidence; for a pardon would restore his competency, and the prisoner may yet be convicted. I cannot take upon myself to put an end to it on mere motion, and without trial.
    Let the prisoner be enlarged on his own recognizance, to appear at next term, to answer to the indictment to be preferred, in the sum of five hundred dollars.
    From this order the defendant appealed ; and now renewed Iris motion to quash the proceedings.
    A. W. Thompson, for the motion.
    Cited 1 Ph. Ev. 23. Morgan «.Hughes, 2 T. R. 225. Walker «. Kearney, 2 Str. 1148. Skip v. Harwood, Willes, 291.
    Bauskett, contra.
    
   Per Curiam.

We concur in opinion with the presiding Judge for the reasons stated by him.

Motion refused.  