
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1813.
    The State v. Samuel Yancey.
    The defendant was indicted for murder, as principal, and the jury found the “ prisoner guilty of murder; and some days after the verdict was returned into court, the words, “ Samuel Yancey’’ were interlined, by order of the judge. The motion was for arrést of judgment, on the ground of uncertainty in the verdict. Held, by a majority of the court, that although the amendment of the verdict was irregular, yet that amendment could not vitiate the conviction, which was regular; and that, though verdicts may be badly written, and incorrectly expressed, they cannot be set aside when they are sufficiently clear to be understood.
    Motion in arrest of judgment. From Laurens district.
    The defendant was indicted, together with Lewis D. Yancey, for murder. The first as principal, and the second as accessary ; they were tried separately, before Judge Colcock. Samuel Yan. cey was first tried. The verdict of the jury was in these words : “ We find the prisoner, Samuel Yancey, guilty of murder.” The words, “Samuel Yancey,” were interlined after the verdict was returned into court, some days after, by order of the court. Lewis D. Yancey was found not guilty. The verdict was simply not guilty.
    
    Six grounds were taken for the prisoner on this motion.
    I. The indictment does not state the jurors to be good and lawful men of the district.
    
      2. Prisoner is charged by the name of Samuel Yancey, late of the district of Laurens, without expressing what Laurens district, or whereabouts within the same. This was said to be too vague.
    ■3. That .part of the indictment which draws the conclusion from the premises, that the prisoner did kill and murder the deceased, omits, the words, then and there, which„according to the precedents, ought to be inserted.
    4. The conclusion of the indictment against the peace and dignity of this Slate, omits the words, “ aforesaid,” or “ the same State.”
    5. The verdict is vague ; not distinguishing which prisoner was found guilty. The amendment of the indictment was irregular and illegal, being some days after the verdict was rendered ; and,
    6. The words, “Samuel Yancey;^ interlined in the verdict, are .so written as to make it doubtful whether Samuel Yancey was meant, or some other person.
    22d April, 1813.
    Argued by A.' Ckenshaw, Caldwell,'and
    Downes, for the prisoner; and Mr. Solicitor Stake, for the State.
    For the prisoner it was contended, that the grand jurors finding' an indictment, should appear to be good and lawful men, and qualified to find the indictment. Cited 2 Hal. P. C. 155. 2 Ld. Raym. 1305. 4 Com. Dig. 385. On the 2d point was cited 2 Hayw. 140. 4 Bl. Com. 301. 4 Com. Dig. 301. On the 5th and 6th, cited 4 Com. Dig. 408. 4 Mod. 395. 1 Salk. 47, 53. Bac. Abr. Tit. Verdict. Cro. Eliz. 111. Cro. C. 776.
    For the State, it was argued, that the 1st and 6th exceptions contained no legal merits. Every 'word in the verdict may be rejected as surplusage, except the word “ guilty.” The prisoner was found guiity. The fact is well known, and cannot be denied. The minutes of the proceedings of the court will prove it. There can be no danger from resorting to such evidence. The identity of the person may be tried, if seriously disputed. Cited 2 Hawk. P. C. 455, 627. Verdict was amended by the judge’s notes. 2 Str. 844. 2 Hawk. Supra. Good and lawful men shall be presumed. 2 Haw. P. C. 308. It was not necessary to insert the words, “ then and there,” in that part of the indictment which has been insisted on ; it is before set forth, that the prisoner did then and there strike the deceased, giving to him a mortal wound of which he then and there instantly died. It was not necessary to repeat the words, “ then and there,” in the conclusion drawn by the grand jury, that deceased was killed and murdered. 2 Hawk. 264, sec-^le ^eat^ *s only necessary to shew that the aho-ceased died, within a year and day after the mortal injury was' committed. 5 D. and E. 622. King v. Holland. The 4th ex. ceP(i°n not good. Cited Washington’s case, and Fley and Rochelle’s case. The. constitution is sufficiently and substantially complied with.
   Nott, J.,

was of opinion the judgment ought to be arrested. The amendment of the indictment was irregular and unwarranted. As the verdict stood before, it was uncertain. It cannot appear from the record which prisoner was found guilty. The minutes of the court do not state the conviction of this prisoner in explicit terms. It only says that Samuel Yancey was brought into court; that the prisoner was tried and found guilty ; not saying what prisoner ; and that Samuel Yancey was remanded to gaol. The other objections he thought were invalid.

Smith, J.,

was of opinion, that neither of the exceptions ought-to prevail. The minutes of the proceedings of court on the indictment, shew clearly that the prisoners had separate trials. On the trial of this prisoner, the minutes shew that he was ordered to be-brought into courtthat he was brought in and arraigned ; that he was tried ; and that the verdict is recorded, shewing that the pri--soner was found guilty. In reading these proceedings, no doubt' can be entertained as to which of the prisoners the conviction re-' lates.

JBkevaed, J.,

was of the same opinion. The verdict is no pait-of the indictment. The indictment appears to be sufficient in law to maintain the verdict. The omission of “ good and lawful-men,” cannot apply to the petit jury, who found the vefdict. It shall be-intended that the grand jury were qualified to find the bill, after trial and verdict. The amendment of the verdict was irregular, but cannot vitiate the conviction, which was regular! The verdict,. although badly written, and incorrectly expressed, is clear enough,- and sufficient. No doubt can reasonably be entertained as to which of the indictees the word “ guilty” was applied. It is a matter of fact which may, at any time, be investigated and cleared up, not only by the written proceedings, but by evidence dehors. No dan-, ger can arise from the supposed uncertainty of the verdict. In favor of life, a jury trial would be ordered to ascertain the fact of identity, if any occasion should appear for it. All the other ex»-ceptions appear to be insufficient.

Bay, J., was of the same opinion.

Motion refused.  