Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/72

 Rh  Johua Buffington, the prioner, pleaded, , that he is not the Johua Buffington, in the proclamation named, and was not required to urrender himelf, &c.—On which the Attorney General replied, that the prioner at the bar is the ame Johua Buffington, in the aid proclamation named; and thereupon iue was joined.

The proclamation being produced on the trial, it appeared, that Johua Buffington, now, or late, of the townhip oƒ Eat Bradford, yeoman, was therein required to urrender himelf, &c. according to the terms of the uggetion.

The evidence was this:—That on the 16th of May 1780, a warrant iued to apprehend Johua Buffington; that about three or four weeks before the date of the warrant, the prioner had removed from Cheter County into the Delaware State; that he was born in Cheter County, and had reided there from the year 1776, to the time of his aid removal; and that he was the only peron of that name in the County. On the other hand, however, all the witnees agreed, that Johua Buffington had never lived in Eat Bradford, but always in Wet Bradford townhip, which were ditinct townhips to every intent and purpoe.

Lewis and Ingerol, for the defendant, contended that this variance between the proclamation, and the proof, was fatal to the proceedings; and cited 2 Haw. 186. . 119. 120. 121. id. 189. . 121.

The Attorney General inited, however, that the only quetions to be determined, were, firt, whether the prioner is the Johua Buffington whom the Executive Council intended to call upon to urrender, &c.; and, econdly, whether he is o decribed, that the decription cannot apply to any other peron; and he cited, Fot. 79. 87. 3 Bac. 617. 107. 163.

But, :—Although it may be allowed, that the legilature is not bound to the ame trictnes, that is required in the decriptions of all indictments; yet, we are inclined to think, that the Executive Council is o bound. Even in the cae of a pardon, if the peron intended to be benefitted were named of a wrong townhip, the effect of the pardon would be extremely doubtful.

On the preent occaion, though Johua Buffington of Eat Bradford was called upon to urrender himelf; yet, Johua Buffington of Wet Bradford certainly was not; and there is ground for a preumption, that the prioner did not think he was the immediate object of the proclamation.

The Court are, therefore, of opinion that the identity is not ufficiently etablished.

The jury found a verdict, upon the iue, in favor of the defendant; and he was thereupon dicharged.

In September, 1782, however, he was tried for the offences alledged againt him, and acquitted. But the Court ordered him to give ecurity to be of good behaviour, and keep the peace, during the war with Great-Britain.