
    The People vs. Charles Tryon.
    An indictment against an attorney, for collecting and receiving in the capacity of attorney at law, money belonging to the prosecutor, and neglecting to pay the same to him, after demanded, etc.; but not distinctly averring that the relation of attorney and client existed between the defendant and prosecutor, held insufficient.
    Error to Wayne Circuit.
    Tlie defendant was indicted by the grand jury of said County of Wayne, at the May term of said Court, A. D. 1856, for refusing to pay over money alleged to have been collected by him as an attorney at law; he demurred to said indictment, and the demurrer was overruled; he then plead not guilty — was tried, and convicted. He then made a motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled, and was sentenced by the Court. And from the judgment of the Court, sued out this writ of error.
    The indictment was in the words and figures following:
    “ Wayne, County, ss.
    
    The grand jurors of the People of the State of Michigan, inquiring in and for the body of the county aforesaid, upon their oath present, that Charles Tryon, an attorney at law, of the county aforesaid, on the first, day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, at Detroit, in the county aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did collect and receive the sum of five hundred dollars, belonging to Mrs. Malvina L. Baker, of the City of ■Cincinnati, in the State of Ohio, which said sum the said Charles Tryon so collected and received in the capacity of an attorney at law, for, and in behalf of, and in the name of said Malvina L. Baker, and that the said Charles Tryon should have paid over said money for, and in behalf of said Malvina L. Baker. But that said Tryon, from the said first day of May, until the day of the taking of this inquisition, hath neglected to pay the same, or any part thereof, although the said sum has by the said Malvina L. Baker, on the day aforesaid, and at divers other times between that day and the day of the taking of this inquisition, been duly demanded of and from the said Charles Tryon, nevertheless the said Charles Tryon hath so as aforesaid, neglected so to pay the said sum.”
    
      Burt c& Mayna/rd, for defendant.
    The indictment does not legally set forth, that the relation of attorney and client existed between defendant and proseCTitrix, nor that tbe money received by tbe defendant, was so received by bim in his official character of attorney at law.
    It must appear affirmatively on tbe face of tbe indictment, that tbe money alleged to have been received by tbe defendant was so received in bis official character of attorney at law. (Matter of Dakin, 4 Hill, pp. 42 to 46; R. S. of Mich., p. 666, § 30; Sloan vs. Johnson, 14 Smedes & Marshall, p. 47; Case of Levi S. Burr, 3 "Wheeler’s Grim. Cases, y. 513.)
    Tbe indictment does not specify, state, or in any way set forth or show, of what Court, State or place tbe defendant is an attorney at law. Tbe indictment ought to show that tbe defendant was an attorney at law of tbe Court in which tbe indictment was found. (Em parte Eetehwm, 4 Hill’s pp. 564 to 566.)
    
      J. M. Howard, for tbe People.
   Tbe cause was- decided orally.

Tbe Court, bolding that tbe indictment did not sufficiently aver that tbe relation of attorney and client existed between tbe prosecutrix and defendant, reversed tbe judgment of tbe Court below, and ordered judgment accordingly.  