MAULL vs. THE STATE

MAULL vs. THE STATE. [INDICTMENT FOR ULVING-.IN ADULTERY.] I.:Sufficiency of indictment. — An indictment, charging that a man and a woman “ did live in. a state of adultery or fornication,” but not stating that they thus lived with each other, nor otherwise showing that they were guilty of a joint offense, is demurrable for duplicity. Feom tbe Circuit Court of Jefferson, on change of venue from Blount- Tried before tbe Hon. Wm. S. Mudd. The indictment in ihis-c&se-charged,- that John Maull, a man, and Mary Johnson, a woman, did live in a state of adultery or fornication, against the peace and dignity oHihe State,” &c. The prisoners demurred to the indictment, “ because it did not charge that they lived together, or with each other, in a state of adultery or fornicationbut the court overruled the demurrer. Watts, Judge & Jackson, for the prisoners, cited Moore v. The Commonwealth, 6 Metcalf, 243. M. A. BaldwiN, Attorney-General, contra. [MAJORITY — A. J. WALKER, C. J.] A. J. WALKER, C. J. The offenses charged tp have been committed by the defendants, do not appear from the indictment to have been perpetrated by any joint act; but, for aught disclosed, may have been altogether distinct, neither defendant participating in the criminal act of the other. For this reason, tbe indictment was demurrable for duplicity. — Shaw v. State, 18 Ala. 547. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.