
    [ *230 ] *State vs. Thomas W. Holmes 2d.
    A grand-juror’s complaint charged the defendant with having feloniously taken and carried away a buffalo robe, on a day and at a place named, and further complained that on the same day and at the same place he feloniously took and carried away another buffalo robe, with a single concluding allegation that it was against the peace and contrary to the statute. The defendant, after a verdict against him, moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the complaint was bad for duplicity. Held, 1. That the technical rules of pleading are not to be strictly applied in the case of grand- . juror’s complaints. 2. That the court would regard the complaint as embracing two sufficient counts, or as charging the taking of two articles by one theft. 3. That in criminal cases, as well as in civil, such a mere formal defect is cured by verdict.
    Complaint for theft, by a grand-juror to a justice of the peace, appealed by the defendant to the superior court.
    The complaint was as follows: “To, &c., justice of the peace, ¿se., comes Samuel A. Edmond, a grand-juror, ¿se., and complaint makes that Thomas W. Holmes 2d, of &c., at said town of Stonington, on the 21st day of November, A. D. 1857, with force and arms, one buffalo róbe of the value of eight dollars, of the goods and chattels of Charles M. Davis of said Stoning-ton, then and there being found, feloniously did steal, take and carry awáy; and the said Samuel A. Edmond, grand-juror, complaint makes, that said Thomas W. Holmes, 2d, at said-town of Stonington, on the 21st day of November, 1857, did then and there feloniously take, steal and carrv away one other ' buffalo robe, of the value of eight dollars, of the goods and chattels of said Charles M. Davis, against the peace and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and'of evil example, wherefore your complainant prays due process in the premises.”
    The jury found the defendant guilty, and he moved in arrest of judgment for the insufficiency of the complaint, assigning specially that the complaint, while containing but one count, charged two distinct and separate offenses. -The question arising on the motion was reserved for the advice of this court.
    * Wait and Halsey, in support of the motion. [ *231 ]
    
      Willey, state attorney, (with whom was Brandagee,) contra.
   Ellsworth, J.

We think the - motion in arrest should be. overruled.

The objection of duplicity, as founded on a supposed union of two offenses in one count,.is not well taken.' We are satisfied that, on a just view of the grand-juror’s complaint, there are here two counts. The first, it is true, is not very formal in its conclusion, but after the repeated decisions of this court upon complaints by grand-jurors, we can not think it proper to hold this count bad in form. In the State v. Miller, 24 Conn., 519, it was decided that the words contra pacem are not essential in such complaints. Nor is the omission of the other words which are usually inserted—“ contrary to the form of the statute”—a fatal omission in the present case, for the offense charged is a common law offense.

If however we are wrong in this, and the complaint does really contain in one count a charge of two distinct acts—that is, the taking of two robes, it is by no means certain that more was meant, or is to be regarded as alleged, than that two robes were taken at the same time, making one theft. This we believe might have been the intention of the pleader.

But if in this too we are wrong, the whole defect in the complaint is merely formal, and consists wholly in its duplicity. Now, in civil cases, duplicity is cured by verdict, and we think at this day it would be held to be so in criminal cases. This is the opinion of Archbold, one of our best writers on criminal practice, and this court has substantially held the same in the case of The State v. Miller, 24 Conn., 530, and in that of The State v. Kilbourn, 9 id., 560. See Arch. Crirn. Law, 53.

We need not add, that there is in our courts, as in courts elsewhere, a decided, and we think judicious, relaxation of technical rules with regard to the formality required [ *232 ] in, the *drafting of complaints by grand-jurors. Whiting v. The State, 14 Conn., 490. Rawson v. The State, 19 id., 295. Goddard v. The State, 12 id., 448, and The State v. Miller, above referred to.

The motion in arrest should be- overruled.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Motion in arrest overruled.  