
    Commonwealth vs. George McCarty & another.
    Bristol.
    October 28, 1895. —
    November 30, 1895.
    Present: Field, C. J., Knowlton, Morton, Lathrop, & Barker, JJ.
    
      Indictment for Intent to Ravish — Simple Assault.
    
    Under an indictment alleging that A. and B. “ in and upon one C. . . . violently and feloniously did make an assault, with intent her, the said C., . . . then and there, by force and against her will, violently and feloniously to ravish and carnally know/’ it is competent for the jury to find them guilty of a simple assault, whether the intent to ravish is well alleged or not.
    Indictment, alleging that George McCarty, Edward Acton, and Peter La Chance, at Fall River, on January 31, 1895, “in and upon one Catherine Webb, otherwise called Catherine E. Webb, violently and feloniously did make an assault, with intent her, the said Catherine Webb, otherwise called as aforesaid, then and there, by force and against her will, violently and feloniously to ravish and carnally know.”
    Trial in the Superior Court, before Sheldon, J., who overruled the defendant’s motion, made before the jury were empanelled, to quash the indictment, on the grounds that it was bad for duplicity, for misjoinder of defendants, and for uncertainty.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty of simple assault against McCarty and Acton; and the latter alleged exceptions.
    
      
      J. T. Cummings, (C. R. Cummings with him,) for Acton.
    
      A. J. Jennings, District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
   Field, C. J.

Whether the intent is well alleged or not, the indictment could not be quashed, and it was competent for the jury, under the indictment, to find the defendants guilty of a simple assault. Commonwealth v. Fischblatt, 4 Met. 354. Commonwealth v. Dean, 109 Mass. 349. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 116 Mass. 346. Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 131 Mass. 584.

We are inclined to think that the intent to ravish Catherine Webb is well alleged, whether the intent was that only one of the defendants should ravish her, or that all should in succession, although it is not necessary to decide this. Commonwealth v. Fogerty, 8 Gray, 489, 491. Pub. Sts. c. 210, § 3. State v. Comstock, 46 Iowa, 265. 1 Russ. Crimes, (9th Am. ed.) 920. Dennis v. State, 5 Ark. 230. Regina v. Crisham, C. & M. 187.

Exceptions overruled.  