
    State v. Inskeep.
    
      Assault and battery— What is a sufficient indictment for.
    
    (Decided March 8, 1892.)
    Bite of EXCEPTIONS, to the rulings of the Court of Common Pleas of Brown county, by the prosecuting attorney.
    The defendant was indicted for an assault and battery by the grand jurors of the county. The indictment charged “that John Inskeep * * * on the eighth day of November, 1890, at the county aforesaid, unlawfully did make an assault in and upon one John W. Moler, and him, the said John W. Moler, did then and there strike and wound,” with the usual conclusion. A motion to quash the indictment was sustained on the ground that it “ contains but one count and two separate and distinct offences.” The prosecuting attorney took a bill of exceptions, and asks to have the ruling reversed.-
    
      David Tarbell, prosecuting attorney, for the state.
    
      Young & McBeth, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

The common pleas erred in sustaining the motion. The indictment is not bad for duplicity, is in proper form, and the motion should have been overruled.

Exception sustained.  