#### STATE vs. ISAAC HOUSER.

Indictment for selling spirits to a slave, "the property of one William Michaels," The true name was William H. Michal: — Heidi there was no variance.

(The case of the State v. Patterson, 2 Ire. 346, cited and approved.)

The defendant was indicted for selling spirituous liquor to a slave charged in the bill of indictment as the property of one William Michaels. On the trial, before Ellis, Judge, at Lincoln, on the last Spring Circuit, the owner of the slave was introduced as a witness on behalf of the State, and he testified that his name was William H. Michal, and not Michaels ; but that some persons frequently called him Michaels, and that he answered to that name, and he presumed they knew him as well by that name as by the other. His Honor charged the jury that if they believed that the owner was as well known by the name of Michaels, as by his true name Michal, there was no variance, and the defendant was guilty. There was a verdict of guilty, and after an ineffectual motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection by his Honor, and judgment against the defendant,' he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Guión and 'Ihompson, for the defendant.

Attorney General, for the State.

PearsoN, J.

The only point made is upon the difference be*411tween Michal and Michaels. This is settled. State v. Patterson, 2 Ire. 346. There, Deadema and Diadema was held to be no variance.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.