
    Commonwealth v. Dudley.
    December, 1835.
    Duelling — Indictment for Aiding and Abetting — Case at Bar. — An indictment for aiding and abetting in fighting a duel, not charging with clearness and certainty that a duel was fonght, Hhud, for that reason, bad on general demurrer.
    Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Amherst. At September term 1834, the grand jury found an indictment against Dudley in the following words — “ Amherst county, superiour court of law and chancery, to wit: The grand jurors empanelled and sworn at September term 1834, upon their oath present, that J. W. Dudley, late of the county of Ainherst, labourer, with force and arms, in the county aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said superiour court, on the 1st day of September 1834, did, wilfully and knowingly, aid, abet and counsel a certain W. M. Davis, in unlawfully, '^maliciously and wilfully lighting a duel with pistols, with a certain W. M. Rambert, then and there being, the probable consequence of which weapons might be the death of the said Davis or the said Rambert, and the jurors upon their oaths say, that the said Dudley did, as aforesaid, aid, abet and counsel the said Davis in fighting the said duel, which took place at the time, place and manner aforesaid, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth. ’ ’ The defendant demurred generally to the indictment. And the court, with the defendant’s consent, adjourned the question to this court what judgment should be given on the demurrer.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Indictments, Informa-tions and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., It Gratt. 674.
    
   UPSHRR, J.,

delivered the resolution of the court. In an indictment for aiding and assist-in ar in fighting a duel, it is indispensable to charge that a duel was fought. Perhaps, it was ihe intention of the attorney to do so in this instance, and the language of the indictment may possibly be susceptible of such a construction. But it is also susceptible of a different construction ; and therefore, is wanting in that directness and precision of averment, which are necessary in all indictments. This defect being, in our opinion, fatal, we have not thought it necessary to turn our attention to other objections. This court advises, that the demurrer be sustained.  