
    United States v. Henry Lloyd.
    A motion to quash an indictment for want of the name of a prosecutor, is too late after verdict.
    The Court will not quash the indictment for want of the name of a prosecutor if the witnesses were called for by the grand jury; but will quash an indictment where the name of a prosecutor was not indorsed, and no order of court to send the witnesses to the grand jtu-y, and it does not appear that the witnesses were called for by the grand jury.
    Assault and batteRy. In Turley’s case, in this Court, at November term, 1833, the Court was of opinion that the objection, for want of a prosecutor, was too late after verdict; but agreed to hear Mr. Heioitt again in H. Lloyd’s cases, on that point. It does not appear, however, that in these causes any thing further has been said upon it. The doctrine in Turley’s case, may, therefore, be considered as conceded.
    
      Mr. Hewitt moved to quash this indictment. The proceedings respecting the witnesses appeared to be as follows :
    On the second day of the term the witnesses were called upon by the grand jury and sworn. It appeared by the defendant’s recognizance, returned by the justice, that certain persons were witnesses. Their names were indorsed on the indictment by the grand jury, who certify by their foreman, that they were called on by the grand jury. (See the Virginia Law, pp. 105, 346.)
    
      Mr. Hewitt
    
    contended, that the Act of 1795, p. 346, <§> 2, applies only to cases where the fact is known to some of the grand jurors of their own knowledge, and not of the information of others.
   The Court

(Thruston, J., cernirá,)

refused to quash the indictment, where the witnesses appeared to have been called upon by the grand jury.

Bat (nem. con.) quashed another, where there was no prosecutor indorsed, and no order of the court to send the witnesses to the grand jury ; and it did not appear that the grand jury had called for them.  