
    State v. Hoffman.
    1. Criminal Law: demurrer to indictment partially sustained and cause dismissed : no appeal by dependant. There was a demurrer to the indictment based upon two grounds. The court overruled the demurrer on one of the grounds, but sustained it on the other ground, and ordered that the indictment and all the proceedings under it be dismissed. Held that defendant was in no further peril, and could not maintain an appeal from the judgment of the court in overruling the demurrer on the one ground.
    
      Appeal from Carroll District Court.
    
    Friday, October 23.
    The defendant was indicted for cheating by false pretenses. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained as to one ground and overruled as to another. Defendant appeals from the judgment overruling the demurrer as to one ground.
    
      Cole, MeVey dc Clark, for appellant.
    
      A. J. Baker, Attorney-general, for the State.
   Beck, Ch. J.

The demurrer to the indictment was based upon two grounds. It was sustained as to one, and overruled as to the other. The district court thereupon adjudged and ordered that the indictment and all further proceedings thereunder be dismissed. In our opinion an appeal will not lie in this case, for the reason that, under the decision of the district court, it is finally ended, and no further proceedings can be had therein. Defendant is in no peril from the indictment, for it exists no longer as a charge of crime against him. It is as though it had never been — utterly deprived of all force and effect. It is true that defendant may be again indicted for the same offense, and it is equally true that he may never be, or that, if again indicted, the' charge will not be in the same form as it was presented in the defunct indictment. The case is as though a party should appeal to this court stating that he feared an indictment, and alleging errors which might exist in an imaginary charge against him, asking us to pass upon them.- We can decide •only real questions in pending cases. We cannot imagine questions that may arise in supposed or possible cases, and settle them, in order to protect the property or liberty of a citizen in cases that may hereafter arise. This view of the case was urged in oral argument by the attorney-general. The appeal is

Dismissed.  