CASES REPORTED.

Bean v. Adams & Buckingham, 388. Cin. Ins. Co.-Roots & Coe v. 138.

Fellowes, et al.-Madison Ins. Co. v. Jaquess v. Ham. Co. Com'rs, et al.

Moody, et al. v. Thomas, 294.
Moore v. Steidel, et al. 281.
Moore, et al. Sargent v. 99.
Moore & Rogers v. Powell, 144.
Murdock v. Reed, et al. 274.

Sargent v. Moore, et al. 99.
Scarborough, et al.-Hunnewell,
Hill & Co. v. 427.

Schaeffer v. Macqueen, 453.
Schaettle v. Benedict, 445.

Musler, et al. Hall, et al. Admrs. v. Seybold v. Greenwald, et al. 425. 36.

Nat. Ins. Co. v. Irwin & Co. 430.
Nelp-Endress v. 411.

Neville & Co. v. Hambo's Admr. 517.
New Eng. Mut. Life Ins. Co.-Rob-
ert v. 355.

Newton v. Clark, et al. 265.

Smead, Collard & Hughes v. Chris-
field & Peale, 17, 18.

Smead, Collard & Hughes v. Fay &
Bradley, 531.

Smead, Collard & Hughes v. Lacey,
Assignee, 239.

Smith, who sues, etc. et al.-Pier-
son, Assignee, v. 305.

Newton, et al.-Van Ingen v. 458, Smith v. Bowler, 520.

482.

O'Donnell v. O'Donnell, 299.
Ogborn-Heidenheimer & Co. v. 351.
Ogborn, et al.-Butterfield v. 550.
Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co.-Admrx.
of Dunhene v. 257.

Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co.-Admr.
of Chambers v. 327.
Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co.-Merch.
Bank of Cle veland v. 469.
Ohio& Miss. R. R. Co. v. Crary, et
al. 128.

Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. et al.

Parvin v. McBride, et al. 566.
Paul, et al. Farnsworth v. 423.
Pierson, Assignee v. Smith et al. 305.
Powell-Moore & Rogers v. 144.
Powell v. State Bank of Ohio, 267.
Prather v. Foote, et al. 434.
Pugh, et al.-Rogers, et al. v. 443.

Raft of pine lumber-Glays v. 503.
Ramsay & Co. v. Overaker, 569, 571.
Reed, et al.-Murdock v. 274.
Rieman & Sons-Cin. Ins. Co. v. 396.
Rising Sun Ins. Co.-Hall & Lind-
ley v. 308.

Robert v. New Eng. Mut. Life Ins.
Co. 355.

Roberts, et al. v. Roberts' Ex'rs, 177.
Roelofson and wife v. Atwater, 346.
Rogers v. Ellis & Sturges, 1.

Rogers, et al. v. Pugh, et al. 443.
Roots & Coe v. Cin. Ins. Co. 138.
Roots & Coe v. Wash. Ins. Co. 138.
Ruffner v. Ham. Co. Com'rs, 39, 196.

South. Bank of Kentucky v. Brashears & Laws, 207.

State Bank of Ohio v. Oliver, et al.
159.

State Bank of Ohio-Powell v. 269.
Steidel, et al.-Moore v. 281.
Stoddart v. Marshall, et al. 527.

Talbott, et al.-Atkinson v. 111.
Taylor-Johnson Bros. & Co. v. 168.
Thomas-Moody, et al. v. 294.
Timberlake v. Cin. Gazette Co. 320.
Tinan v. Wayne, et al. 148.
Troy Iron and Nail Factory, et al.-
Winslow, Trustee v. 229.

Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indianapolis
& Cin. R. R. Co. 480.

Vandyke v. City of Cincinnati, et al. 532.

Van Ingen v. Newton, et al. 458, 482.

Wagener, Ex parte, 10.
Ward, et al.-Beresford v. 169.
Wash. Ins. Co.-Roots & Coe v. 138.
Wayne, et al. Tinan v. 148.
West v. Brown, 48.
West & Co. v. Dodsworth, et al. 161.
West. Fem. Sem. v. Blair, 370.
Wiggins v. Covington & Cin. Bridge
Co. 573.

Wilson v. Ferrari, 579.
Winslow, Trustee, v. Troy Iron and

Nail Factory, et al. 229.
Woodruff, et al.-Geyer v. 339.
Woodruff, et al.-McAlpin v. 339.
Work & Son v. Haughton, et al. 156.
Work & Son v. Mitchell & Wanzer,
506.
Wright r. Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. et

al. 465.

REPORT OF CASES

ADJUDGED IN

Superior Court of Cincinnati

AT

SPECIAL AND GENERAL TERMS.

JOHN C. ROGERS v. ELLIS & STURGES.

An affidavit in attachment, alleging several causes of attachment in the disjunctive, is bad for uncertainty.

SPECIAL TERM.-Action in attachment, to recover a balance of deposit due from Rowland Ellis and William Sturges, doing business as bankers, etc. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss the attachment, for reasons that sufficiently appear in the decision.

A. N. Riddle, for plaintiff.

Worthington & Matthews, for defendants.

STORER, J. This is a motion to dismiss an attachment, issued upon the affidavit of the plaintiff, who claims to be a creditor of the defendants, for deposits received of him as his bankers, and who charges, "that the defendants, by Rowland Ellis, have assigned, removed or disposed of, or are about to dispose of their property, jointly or separately, or a part thereof, with intent to defraud their creditors; the plaintiff' further states, that the defendant Sturges is a non-resident of the State of Ohio."

John C. Rogers v. Ellis & Sturges.

The affidavit of Ellis is filed, denying all the allegations of the plaintiff, except the non-residence of Sturges.

It is sought to dismiss the attachment on two grounds: First. That the statement of the several causes for which the order is asked, is in the disjunctive, and therefore there is no precise or definite charge made, in the plaintiff's affidavit, to meet the requisitions of the code.

Second. That the facts, as they are averred, so far as the assigning, removing, or disposing of their property, by the defendants, or being about to do so, are untrue.

The plaintiff's counsel, in reply to the first position assumed by the defendants, has argued that it is not necessary to allege the existence of the several causes, for which an attachment may properly issue, except in general terms; that the remedy must be liberally construed to advance the purposes of justice, and if the literal language of the statute is followed, it is sufficient.

The principle, however, upon which we are asked to decide the question, by the defendant's counsel, is not of modern origin; it has prevailed from a very early period in the history of judicial proceedings, and is founded, it is believed, upon the soundest reason, as well as justice. It was adopted, originally, as a rule of criminal practice, that the accused might have the benefit of a full knowledge of the offense with which he was charged, by a clear, definite, and positive statement in the indictment, or information, to which he was required to answer. Thus, it is laid down, as a settled principle, "that no charge of a criminal nature can be laid in the alternative; if it is, the proceeding will be void; as if a party should be charged with killing, or intending to kill, with beating, or intending to beat, with forging, or intending to forge," for it is said the offenses are distinct, and it does not appear of which the defendant is accused. 2 Hawkins, P. C. 311, § 58. 3 Bacon's Ab. 161.

This rule has been extended, and it is now universally applied in civil cases, where remedies at common law, or by statutes, involve the discussion or examination of legal or