
    John E. White v. The State of Ohio.
    Error to the district court of Muskingum county.
    The plaintiff in error was indicted for an assault with intent to kill, and for an assault with intent to wound. On the trial, he was found not guilty of the former, and as to the latter charge, “not guilty of shooting with intent to wound, in manner and form as he stands charged in and by the said second count of said indictment; but «that, under said secon'd count of the said indictment, he, the said defendant, is guilty of an assault only.”
    The second count of the indictment, for shooting with intent to wound, is in these words :
    “The said John E. White, on the 13th day of January, in>. the year 1859, at the county of Muskingum aforesaid, with force and arms, in and upon one Lewis C. Lovell, then and there being, unlawfully did make an assault, and with a certain pistol, then and there loaded with gunpowder and leaden balls, which said pistol so had as aforesaid, the said John E. White, in his right hand then and there had and held, at and toward him, the said Lewis C. Lovell, then and there unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously did shoot with intent thereby then and there, him, the said Lewis C. Lovell, feloniously, unlawfully and maliciously to wound, contrary to the form of the statute,” etc.
    The indictment was not indorsed by the prosecutor for costs.
    The sentence of the court was, “that he, the said defendant, for such his offense, pay a fine of fifty dollars, and that he also pay the costs of this prosecution,'taxed at $619.10.”
    
      Goddard, Bunker $• O’Neil, for plaintiff in error.-
    
      James Murray, attorney general,, for the state.
   By the CoüRT

A verdict and sentence for an assault only might be rendered under such an indictment. The assault was properly and sufficiently described, without adding the words “in a menacing manner,” contained in the statute which provides for punishing an assault. 1 S. & C. 428. The sentence of the court, in connection with the verdict of the jury, is sufficient to preclude a second indictment for the same offense. And it was not necessary that the indictment should be indorsed by the prosecutor for costs.

Judgment affirmed.  