 | California - 1881 - 806 str.
...information. 6. 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. 7. That the act or omission charged as the offense is... | |
 | California - 1881 - 878 str.
...information. 6. 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 e liable a person of common understanding to know what is iutended. 7. That the act or omission charged... | |
 | Nebraska, Guy Ashton Brown - 1881 - 838 str.
...set-off, in ordinary and concise language, and without repetition. SBC. 100. [Several grounds of defense.] —The defendant may set forth in his answer as many grounds of defense, counter-claim and set-off as he may have. Each must be separately stated and numbered, and... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1884 - 862 str.
...statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, which statement is required to be expressed 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. Pursuant to that requirement, and the practice of... | |
 | Iowa, Emlin McClain - 1884 - 940 str.
...it is presented, and the name o! the parties; 2. A statement of the facts constituting the offense, 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. An indictment describing the offense in the language... | |
 | 1892 - 1150 str.
...it fails. One of the requirements of the Code1 is a statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person ol common understanding to know what is intended. This, it is true, is very broad language; but the... | |
 | 1913 - 1236 str.
...indictment. '•(>. 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 en| able a person of common understanding to know what is intended. "7. That the act oí omission charged... | |
 | 1922 - 1150 str.
...the Penal Code: "That the act or omission charged aa the offense is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner at to enable a farton of common understanding to know what is intend t (Italics ours.) The indictment... | |
 | 1884 - 1268 str.
...nevertheless, he did perform such acts; that it is not true, so far as this case is concerned, that "the defendant may set forth in his answer as many grounds of defense, counter-claim, set-off, and for relief, as he may have, whether they be such as have been... | |
 | 1913 - 1174 str.
...one at law an equitable defense was permissible. Section 56 of our Civil Code of 1852 provides that "the defendant may set forth In his answer as many grounds of defense, * * * whether legal or equitable, as he shall have." Burns' Stat. 1908, § 352. It therefore... | |
| |
... 6. 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; 7. 
