
    No. 8356.
    The State of Louisiana vs. Charles Williams.
    The defense, that Section 788 of the Revised Statutes, providing for the punishment of the enme against nature, with which the accused is charged, does not define the offense or describe any crime known to the Common Law, is without foundation.
    APPEAL from the Criminal District Court for tlie Parish of Orleans. Homan, J.
    
      J. 0. Egan, Attorney General, for tlie State, Appellee:
    3. “Crime against nature” is a common law offense; also an offense against the law of Louisiana. Sec. 788, It. S. of La.; 4 Blackstone, 214; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary; Bishop on Criminal Law, Yol. 1, Seo. 503.
    2. “ Every objection to any indictment for any formal defect apparent on the face thereof, shall be taken by demurrer or motion to quash such indictment before the jury shall be sworn, and not afterwards.” Seo. 1064, li. S.
    3. The forms of indictments (divested of unnecessary prolixity) shall be according to the common law, unless otherwise provided. Sec. 976, R. S.
    
      Jas. G. WaUcer, Ám/ieus Gurice, for Defendant and Appellant;
    1. Section 788, R. S., does not define tlie crime which it denounces as “the detestable and abominable crime against nature,” and weave therefore referred to the common law by Sec. 97C to ascertain what crime is indicated; but the common law recognizes no such crime co nomine as “the detestable and abominable crime against nature;” sodomy was, felony by the ancient common law, and buggery was felony without benefit of clergy, according to 25 Henry YHI. C. 6, and there are many crimes against nature which cannot be included within the definition of either one or the other of these terms.
    2. The material allegations of time and place should precede every issuable fact in an indictment for sodomy; otherwise the indictment is vitiated and sentence must he arrested.
    
      Tecatum illud horHbile J J J
    
    The Attorney General has submitted this case on the ground “that the record contains no hills of exceptions, assignments of erroi s, or brief on behalf of appellant, and the proceedings appear to have been regular.” The prosecution against the accused was by information filed by the District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans, and the appeal is from a sentence of imprisonment at hard labor for life. Something more is required besides the fact that the proceedings “appear to be regular,” to convince your Honors that “ the judgment and sentence should be affhnud,” in view of the magnitude of the punishment imposed by the court below; therefore,
    
      As amicus curia*, appointed by ibis Court to urge sucb defenses in behalf of the appellant as appear to be suggested by the record, the following observations are respectfully-submitted.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered hy

Fenner, J.

The learned counsel appointed hy the Court to represent the prisoner has discharged his gratuitous task with zeal and ability, justly meriting our commendation.

It is contended that the Section 788, R. S., providing for the punishment of the “ abominable and detestable crime against nature, committed with mankind or beast,” does not define the crime, and that it does not describe any crime known to the common law.

The books satisfy us that the crime referred to by the statute is known in the common law by the convertible and equivalent names of “crime against nature," “sodomy,” and “buggery.” Bishop Cr. L. §503; 4 Blackstone Com. pp. 214; Bouvier’s and Abbott’s Law Dictionaries, verbis, crime against nature, sodomy, buggery; Ausmen vs. Veal, 10 Ind. 365.

The statutes of Massachusetts and New York are similar to onrs in the terms of description used, and prosecutions thereunder have been maintained. Com. vs. Snow, 111 Mass. 411.

A case arising under the same statute has been before this Court, and though it passed off on other grounds, no such objections as this was made. State vs. Gruso, 28 A. 952.

The authorities from Texas, quoted by counsel seem to rest on a statute peculiar to that State, providing that no person shall bo punished for any crime unless the same shall be “ expressly' defined ” in the statute punishing the same. These cases, therefore, do not affect the general principle here in controversy.

The requirements of the common law indictment, in describing the offense, including its additional qualification as “ buggery,” are fully complied with.

The euphemism by which the law describes pccatmn ilhtd horribile, does not, in our opinion, leave its meaning doubtful or obscure.

We therefore think the objection untenable.

We find no uncertainty or insufficiency in the laying of the venue of the offense in the information.

The proceedings are regular and legal in all respects.

Judgment affirmed.  