
    State v. Nichols.
    
      In an indictment properly laying an offence on a particular day, a continuando may be rejected as surplusage.
    Indictment, for embezzlement alleged to have been committed on a certain day, “ and on divers other days between that day, and. a certain other subsequent day.” The respondent moved to quash.
    
      Wheeler 8f Faulkner, for the respondent.
    
      Woodward, solicitor, for the state.
   Stanley, J.

A day certain being named, and the continuando being rejected as surplusage, the indictment is good. People v. Adams, 17 Wend. 475; Cook v. State, 11 Ga. 53; King v. Kixon, 10 Mod. 335; State v. La Coste, 2 Mason 129; Hawkins P. C., B. 2, c. 25, ss. 32, 74.

Motion denied.  