SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

ment. And an innocent man, as every defendant is presumed to be until convicted, can know nothing of what is to be brought against him beyond what is set down in the indictment. Ience Precise and Full Allegation,-which one conscious of crime would not need, is essential to him who would make a just defense against a false charge; and such, in the eye of the law, is every indicted person previous to conviction. And Guessing at Meaning.-The indictment against an innocent defendant, being what every indictment is presumed to be, must, to be adequate, be in distinct and full terms, so plain as to preclude the necessity of guessing at the meaning. Men differ as to their capacity of comprehension, so that justly the law never punishes one for inability to comprehend a meanitlng not set down in exact words. Th erefore-Every Fact,-as already shlown, which is essential in a prima lacie ease of guilt, must be stated; otherwise there will be at least one thing whicl the accused person is entitled to know, whereof he is not informed. And that he may be certain what a thing is, it must be charged expressly, and nothing left to intendment. All that is to be proved must be alleged. For example,-In Attempt-if it is by statute punishable to shoot at one with intent to kill him, an indictment is ill which simply charges the shooting with intent to kill, not saying whom; because, though probably the person shot Ut was the one meant, the defendant is entitled to know all without drawing on his reason or imagination. HencePrecision is, said Gibson, C. J., of the last importance to the innocent; for it is that which marks the limits of the accusation and fixes the proof of it.' "
All of the text writers hold that the information must charge a specific crime. This also is the law of the Canal Zone, as the perusal of pages 169 and 172 clearly reveals. Paragraph 6, Section 77 reads as follows: That the act or omission charged as the offense is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language., without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended."
Had the Government on the trial offered a counterfeit legal tender note, would it not have fitted perfectly the description of the forged instrument? Or would not a United States bond have equally well fitted to the description ? Or a post-office order, or any of the various due-bills or obligations of the United States?
It must be clear tc-all minds that a pay certificate of the

80

Oct. Term,