
    Commonwealth vs. John Hogan.
    Suffolk.
    Nov. 27. — 29,1876.
    Endicott, Devens & Lord, JJ., absent.
    An indictment for receiving stolen goods need not name the thief, although his name is known to the attorney for the government and to the grand jury before the finding of the indictment.
    Indictment for receiving stolen goods, alleged to have been “ stolen, taken and carried away by a certain evil disposed person.”
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Cardner, J., it appeared that one Joseph Jacobs stole the goods in question, and that it was known to the district attorney and grand jury, before its finding of the indictment against-the defendant, that Jacobs was the person who stole the property named in the indictment.
    Upon this evidence appearing, the defendant requested the judge to rule that the indictment was insufficient, and should be quashed; but the judge refused so to rule. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      C. F. Donnelly, for the defendant,
    contended that the name of the thief should have been stated, or that it should have been alleged that it was unknown; and cited Commonwealth v. Hill, 11 Cush. 137.
    
      C. R. Train, Attorney General, W. C. Loring, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

An indictment for receiving stolen goods need not name the thief. Commonwealth v. Slate, 11 Gray, 60 Exceptions overruled.  