Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/126

100 100 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. concern. Many of them have come down from a time when the indictment was in the Latin tongue. They are translations which preserve hterally the form and construction of the old Latin in- dictment. The language is quaint, and requires close attention for an understanding of the real nature of the charge. Again, one pleader was more prolix than another. But the form, prolix or terse, being declared good, was followed, and is followed to-day. So there came lack of uniformity. If skilled pleaders had origi- nated all of the precedents, it Is safe to say that a more uniform system would have resulted. Many if not most of the forms may be made more simple if the pleader will make the effort. But it is not probable that any con- certed action will be taken by those who frame the indictments. There are occasional instances where the forms are abbreviated. They are rare, however. Further brevity should be practised. Still the change will necessarily be so extensive that no substantial improvement can be expected without legislative action. According to Lord Hale, an indictment is a plain, brief, and certain narrative of an offence committed by any person, and of those necessary circumstances that concur to ascertain the fact and its nature. The general principles of pleading with respect to dec- larations at common law and to indictments were the same. The chief rule was that the indictment should be plain and certain. This was required in order that the accused should know what he was to answer, that he might not be tried again, that there might be a proper judgment, and that posterity might know what law was to be derived from the record. The difficulty has been in the appli- cation of the rule, simple in itself, but confused in time by the variety of forms adopted by those framing the indictments and ultimately sanctioned by the courts. It was easy to understand and apply the rule so far as it related to time, place, value, and the name of the injured person ; but the confusion arose when the rule was applied to the description of property and of the offence. The pleader could state some kinds of property readily enough, but ordi- narily he could not specify accurately as to money. He could not give an exact description of each bill and coin. And so several general descriptions were set forth in the hope that some one or more would be proved at the trial.^ Under the rule of the law, 1 In indictments for larceny the common allegation is : " promissory notes cur- rent as money in this Commonwealth, each of the denomination and value of