
    KNOXVILLE:
    JULY TERM, 1835.
    Wilson vs. Rogers.
    Whore several defendants are improperly joined in the same warrant before a magistrate, it will, upon motion of the defendants, be quashed.
    The act of 1821, ch. 68, imposes a penalty upon any person who shall shoot at a mark within two hundred yards of any public road of the first or second class. Under this act, several defendants cannot be joined in the same action; the act prescribes a separate penalty against each offender; a separate judgment must he rendered, and therefore, each must be proceeded against separately.
    . Wilson procured a justice of the peace to issue a warrant to summon Rogers and sis others to answer for shooting within two hundred yards of the Powell’s Valley road, it being a road of the second class. On -the return of the warrant, the justice gave judgment for. ten dollars against each of the defendants; from which, Rogers alone. appealed to the circuit court. After the cause was taken to the circuit court, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the warrant, by inserting after the word “shooting,” the words “at a mark;” hut the court refused to permit the amendment, being of opinion the warrant was defective on account of the joinder of different persons, subject to several penalties in the same warrant. The warrant was then, on motion of defendant, quashed, and the defendant discharged; from which judgment, the plaintiff appealed in error to this court.
    M’Kinney, for plaintiff in error.
    P. Lea and Rogers, for defendant in error.
   Green J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The act of 1821, ch. 68, inflicts a fine of ten dollars upon any person who shall shoot at a mark within two hundred yards of any public road of the first or second class, which shall be recovered by the informer for his own benefit. The warrant in this case did not alledge, that the shooting was at a mark; but the act of 1809, ch. 49, sec. 26, would have authorized the amendment to have been made; but as the motion to quash, was pending before the court, there was no reason for allowing the amendment, if the court saw that the warrant should be quashed for other reasons. We think the court was right in determining, that these defendants were improperly joined in the same action. The act of assembly prescribes a separate penalty against each person who may offend in the manner mentioned. A separate judgment must of necessity be rendered against each. There is no connection between different persons engaged in shooting, by which their offence becomes one, and the penalty joint. Consequently, they cannot be joined in the same suit, (1 Chitty, 98). Let the judgment be affirmed,

Judgment affirmed.  