SYLLABUS INDICTMENT. STATE vs. ROBERT COOK. Criminal Law-Female Child; Lasciviously Playing With—Indict- I. The indictment must definitely and specifically inform the defendant of the offense which he is to meet. 2. In a trial for lasciviously playing with a female child it is not competent for the State to ask the prosecuting witness it there was anything the matter with her after the date of the alleged offense. 3. Nor is it competent or material for the State to show that the defendant committed other acts of a lascivious nature with the prosecuting witness. (February 7, 1902.) JUDGES PENNEWILL and BOYCE, sitting. Herbert H. Ward, Attorney-General, and Robert H. Richards, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State. L. Irving Handy for the defendant. Court of General Sessions, New Castle County, February Term, 1902. INDICTMENT FOR LASCIVIOUSLY PLAYING WITH A FEMALE CHILD. The indictment charged that the defendant, on the night of the 23d of December, 1901, "unlawfully, lewdly and lasciviously " played with one Gracie Ellen Sandy, a female child under the age of 16 years, at the latter's home in the City of New Castle. Handy, for defendant, moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it did not fully inform the defendant of the nature and ARGUMENTS-OPINION. character of the offense he was called upon to meet, but merely stated a conclusion of law. 1 Bishop's New Criminal Procedure, Secs. 623 and 625; United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 542 (593); United States vs. Ford, 34 Fed., 27; State vs. McDowell, 1 Pennewill, 2. Ward, Attorney-General, argued in support of the sufficiency of the indictment. PENNEWILL, J.:-The Court hold that the language of the indictment is sufficient to apprise the defendant of the specific charge which he has to meet; and after all that is the test. It will be observed that the language used is not only that Robert Cook played with a female child, not only that he unlawfully played with her, but that he unlawfully, lewdly and lasciviously played with Gracie Ellen Sandy, a female child, etc. We think, therefore, that it comes within the rule laid down in the case referred to where the charge was for having sexual intercourse, and we think this indictment definitely and specifically informs the defendant of the charge which he is to meet, as did the indictment in that case. The motion, therefore, is denied. The witness was asked by the Deputy Attorney-General if there was anything the matter with her after the 23d of December, 1901. (Objected to by counsel for defendant as irrelevant. Objection sustained.) Q. After this morning, when you say that Mr. Cook came to your room and played with you, did he ever come back to you anywhere and do any such thing? (Objected to by counsel for defendant as irrelevant; citing the EVIDENCE-CHARGE. unreported case of State vs. Cunningham—being an indictment for using a female child for the purpose of sexual intercourse-where a similar question had been ruled out by the Court). Richards, Deputy Attorney-General:-We offer this evidence for the purpose of proving, within a very limited period of time, other acts of a lascivious and lewd nature, as going to show the intent of the defendant at the time the offense charged in the indictment was committed. PENNEWILL, J. :-We think, under the ruling in the case of State vs. Cunningham, that this question is inadmissible. PENNEWILL, J., charging the jury: Gentlemen of the jury:-The respective counsel have not asked the Court to instruct you upon any question of law, for the reason, we presume, that there are no questions of law involved in this case. The question to be determined is simply one of fact, and it is for your determination alone. Robert Cook, the defendant, is charged in this indictment with unlawfully and lewdly and lasciviously playing with Gracie Ellen Sandy, she, the said Gracie Ellen Sandy, being then and there a female child under the age of 16 years. The indictment is based upon a statute of this State, which was passed February 21, 1881, being Chapter 545, Vol. 16, Laws of Delaware (Rev. Code, 956), which— as amended by Chapter 126, Vol. 20, Laws of Delaware-provides that if any person shall lewdly and lasciviously play with any female child under the age of 16 years, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. If you should believe, from the testimony in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Robert Cook, the defendant, committed the VERDICT. offense charged in this indictment, your verdict should be guilty. If you should not so believe your verdict should be not guilty. Verdict, guilty. JOSEPH L. CARPENTER, JR., vs. THOMAS S. WEBB. Case Stated-Will-Power to Sell Lands; Execution of. By his last will and testament A. directed that his executor B. should sell certain of his real estate and execute a deed conveying in fee simple said real estate to the purchaser thereof. The executor executed a deed of conveyance, referring therein to the power contained in the will, ani to the land described in the will as being the same as that conveyed by the deed; but nowhere did the deed state that the estate conveyed was the interest of A., the testator. Held, that there was enough on the face of the deed to show an execution of the power, and that the deed conveyed to the grantee therein the fee simple title to the lands described in the will. (February 17, 1902.) LORE, C. J., and PENNEWILL and BOYCE, J. J., sitting. J. Harvey Whiteman for plaintiff. Francis H. Hoffecker for defendant. Superior Court, New Castle County, February Term, 1902. FACIS. By the will of Emmor Pierson, it was ordered and directed that certain real estate therein described should be sold by his executor therein named at such times and on such terms and conditions as he should think best for the interest of the testator's estate, and the testator authorized and empowered his executor to deed and convey the real estate therein mentioned in fee simple to the purchaser or purchasers as fully and as effectually as he himself could do in his lifetime, and directed that the proceeds of the sale of such lands should constitute and be considered a part of the residue of his estate. He then gave, devised and bequeathed to his brother, Amos Pierson, all of the residue of his estate and named his said brother, Amos Pierson, as the sole executor of his last will and testament. The said Amos Pierson on the seventh day of March, A. D., 1866, together with the widow of tha said Emmor Pierson, executed a deed of conveyance of the lands which the testator directed to be sold; the widow of the said Emmor Pierson joining therein to release her right of dower. This deed recited Amos Pierson as the executor of the last will and testament of his brother, Emmor Pierson, and following the descriptions of the lands therein conveyed is the following, to wit: "And the said Emmor Pierson so siezed thereof of the aforesaid premises in his lifetime made and published his last will in writing, wherein and whereby (among other things) he directed his executor to sell that part of his real estate which is described in said will (being the same as now conveyed to the said Joseph Wright) and appointed his brother, Amos Pierson, (party hereto) as sole executor thereof; the said will bearing date the twelfth day of December, A. D., 1864, being duly proven and remaining in the Register's office in New Castle County afrresaid." The said will was proved October 6, 1864. In all other respects the deed was in the usual form that was used for the conveyance of the grantor's individual estate in the |