
    TYLER TERM, 1862.
    The State v. Person A. Davis.
    See this ease for an indictment held to he sufficient for an assault with intent to murder.
    Note.—Mr. Justice Koberts was not present at this term,.
    Appeal from Harrison. Tried below before the Hon. Charles; A. Frazer.
    At the Fall Term, 18G0, of the District Court of Harrison county, the grand jury returned the following indictment against the appellee: “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas, the grand jurors for the State of Texas, duly selected, empanneled, sworn and charged to inquire of alt. offences against the laws indictable within the body of the county of Harrison, in the State of Texas, upon their oath, present that Person A. Davis, late of the said county of Harrison, on the twentieth day of August. in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight, in the county of Harrison aforesaid, with force and arms, in and upon one Abner Howard, unlawfully, willfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault, and .then and there in the said county of Harrison, in the State of Texas, with a certain double-barreled shot-gun, the same being a ■deadly weapon, then and there loaded with gunpowder and divers leaden balls, which he, the said Person A. Davis, in both his hands had .and held at, to, against and upon the said Abner Howard, unlawfully, feloniously and of his malice aforethought, he, the .said Person A. Davis, did attempt to shoot of and discharge,, with .the unlawful and felonious intent, and with his malice aforethought, him, the said Abner Howard, to kill and murder, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against .the peace and dignity of the State.”
    To this indictment the defendant excepted as follows: “ Defendant excepts to the indictment, and says same is not sufficient in law, and same charges no offence; same is uncertain as to the pretended offence; same appears on its face to be barred by lim.itations.”
    The court sustained the exceptions and discharged the defendant; „and the State appealed.
    Attorney-General, for appellant.
   Wheeler, C. J.

It does not appear by the record, nor is it perceived upon what ground the indictment was adjudged insuffi-cient. We are of opinion that the offence is sufficiently charged .in the indictment, and that the court erred in sustaining the exceptions. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.  