
    The State of Iowa v. Marshall.
    1. Bond i bail. A bail bond executed by a defendant indicted for the crime 'of seduction, otherwise in due form, which does not describe or designate the offense with which the principal is charged more definitely than by the use of the word “seduction,” is sufficient to create a liability.
    
      
      Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.
    
    Thursday, June 28.
    Action upon a bail bond, which, recites that the principal has been “held to answer upon a charge of seduction.” Trial to jury and verdict for the .State. Defendants appeal.
    
      Frank Street for the appellant.
    
      F. F. Bissell, Attorney-G-eneral, for the State.
   Dillon, J.

The questions made upon the demurrer were waived by answering over and going to trial. The only question presented by the record is, whether a bail bond, otherwise in due form, is sufficient to create a liability which does not describe or designate the offense with which the principal is charged any more definitely than by the use of the word “seduction.” The District Court held the bond sufficient. It is contended by the appellants that seduction is not a crime, but there, must be a debauching as well, and the female must be of previously chaste character. This is all true, but the bail bond is not an indictment, and need not contain the particulars requisite in an indictment. In our opinion the offense was sufficiently designated. See Rev., §§ 4968 4979, 4651, 4867; 2 Whart. Or. Law, §§ 2672, 2675.

Affirmed.  