
    Case 65 — INDICTMENT
    March 10.
    Oliver v. Commonwealth.
    APPEAL FROM I'ERRY CIRCUIT COURT.
    Indictment. — The provision of tilo Codo requiring an indictment to be indorsed “a true bill” is mandatory and not merely directory, and if an indictment is not so indorsed it is not a valid indictment and should bo dismissed on demurrer.
    JOHNSON, HURST & EVEESOLE for appellant.
    No brief in record.
    WM. J. HENDRICK, Attorney-General, for appellee.
    1. The law denouncing a penalty for cutting or sawing off the brands of saw-logs is constitutional. (Commonwealth v. Puckett, 92 Ky., 206.)
    2. Is it necessary to the validity of an indictment that it should have indorsed on the back thereof “a true bill,” followed by the signature of the foreman ? The answer to this question depends upon the construction of section 319 of the Criminal Code, and so far as I know this section has never been construed.
   CHIEF-JUSTICE BENNETT

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was -indicted, tried and convicted of the statutory crime of cutting and sawing off the brands of saw-logs. The indictment was signed by the foreman of the grand jury and returned into court and received by it. Rut it was not indorsed “ a true bill.”

Section 119 of the Criminal Code provides that the “ concurrence of twelve grand jurors is required to find an indictment; when so found, it must be indorsed‘a true bill/ and the indorsement signed by the foreman.”

The provision of the Code supra i<s mandatory, not merely directory, that the indictment shall he “ indorsed a true hill and signed by the foreman,” which indorsement is the only legal and competent evidence that the paper filed is an indictment legally found; and unless it is so indorsed the paper is not an indictment legally returned into court and which the accused is not hound to answer. It is not a valid indictment, and it should have been dismissed upon demurrer.

The case is reversed, with directions to dismiss the indictment.  