CANAL ZONE v. RASEINDO.

Isthmian Canal Commission, for the purpose of criminal pleading, is not within the description employed in this information. The intention to defraud the United States might be sustained as laid here; but it would be such unnecessarily hazardous pleading that it should be condemned. The defendant is entitled to have the information so certain that he could plead former conviction or jeopardy as the case might be.
There cannot, we believe, be found in any form book or treatise on pleading a form of indictment for forgery which does not require the instrument itself to be set out in haec verba. This should be done in all cases.
There is not only a variance which is fatal to the judgment, but the information is so faulty that it cannot sustain a judgment. There are no facts necessary averred or alleged in the entire information which constitute a crime. The pleader has formally submitted to the Court the conclusions to which he has arrived that a crime has been committed and the defendant is put on trial for forgery of anything within the range of a due-bill, order or request for the payment of money by the United States of America.
Let the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the views here expressed.
The CHIEF JUSTICE concurred.
Reversed and remanded.

81

1 90'7