
    Randolph against The Commonwealth.
    
      Monday, April 2.
    An indictmcnt char&in? that A, “ with and wickedly did attempt to pick the pock-with intent” then and there steal, take, and carry away the goods and n!es and”pro-vague ’and uncertain to be supported.
    JN ERROR.
    IN the Mayor’s Court of the city of Philadelphia, the *" * - * plaintiff in error, William Randolph, was found guilty on an which set forth that he did, “with force and arms &c. unlawfully and wickedly attempt to pick the pocket _ 7 „ , . . , . , : , 7- , - of one James M‘Casely, with intent then and there reloniously to steal, take, and carry away the goods and chattels, monies and property, of the said James, to the evil example of all others m the like case offending,” &c.
    On the removal of the cause to this Court by writ of error, Phillips, for the plaintiff in error, contended, that as the in-charged merely an attempt to pick a pocket, without laying an assault or batteiy, no offence known to the law had v . r been set forth*
    
      Kittera, for the Commonwealth, answered, that every attempt to commit a felony, by an act done in prosecution of it, was a misdemeanor. 1 Russel on Crinies, 61. 3 Bac. Ab>\ 549. There could be no attempt without an act; and the only question was, whether the act need be set forth.
   Per Curiam.

It is said, in support of this indictment, that an attempt to commit a felony is a misdemeanor, and that there can be no attempt without an act. • But if it be true that there can be no attempt without an act, why was not the act laid in the indictment? If the defendant committed an assault,.with intent to commit a felony, it might have been said so ; and if he committed no assault, it is pot easily to be conceived what kind of attempt he made. This mode of charging a thing by way of argument, and not directly, will not do. To say that a man made an attempt, is very uncertain language. We cannot pretend to say-what it is that the defendant is charged with doing; and without knowing that, we .cannot determine whether what he did was an indictable of-fence. There is no precedent in support of such an indictment, and it appears to the Court to be too loose, too vague, too uncertain, to be supported. We are, therefore, of opinion that the judgment should be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  