
    *The Commonwealth v. Snider.
    November, 1830.
    Indictment — Sufficiency of.- — Indictment against a surveyor of a public road describing the road, but not naming the surveyor: Held, insufficient and bad, on general demurrer.
    Same — Record of Finding — Defendants’ Names Not Given — Effect.-’—Record states, that two indictments against surveyors of roads are found true bills by grand jury, not naming the surveyors: Held, this is not a record of indictments found against any particular surveyors.
    At the circuit court of Pendleton, March term 1830, the grand jury found and presented sundry indictments, against several persons by name, and it was recorded that those indictments were found true bills, “and (the record proceeded) two other indictments against surveyors of roads true bills.” One of these indictments was against the surveyor of that part or precinct of the public road on the South Pork of the Potowmac which passes by G. P.’s saw mill on the South Fork ' in Pendleton county. The indictment did not name the surveyor. A summons was issued against Snider, describing him as the surveyor; who appeared, and 1. demurred generally to the indictment; and 2. pleaded, that there was no record of the supposed indictment against him, to which “there was a general replication.” Whereupon, the circuit court adjourned the following questions to this court: 1. Whether there was a sufficient record of the indictment having been presented in court by the grand jury as a true bill? 2. Whether the indictment was good and sufficient in law?
    
      
      See monographic note on “Indictments, Infor-mations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674.
    
   SMITH, J.,

delivered the resolutions of the court. A majority of the court is of opinion, that the decision of this court in Cawood’s case, 2 Virg. Ca. 527, is decisive on the first point, that there is not a sufficient finding of the indictment shewn by the record.

As to the 2d question adjourned: the general rule is, that the name of the party indicted ought to be inserted. There is an exception to this rule mentioned in 3 Bac. Abr. Indictment, G. 2, p. 557, and 2 Hawk. P. C. ch. 25, | 68, “that an indictment, that the king’s highway in such a place, *is in decay through the default of the inhabitants of such a town, is good without naming any person in certain.” This exception is allowed, because of the difficulty, if not utter impracticability, of ascertaining and naming all the inhabitants of the town. But, in the-case before the court, where the default is. by a single individual, there is no reason why the general rule should not prevail. And we are unanimously of opinion, that the indictment is insufficient, and the demurrer ought to be sustained.  