468 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. [ART. 27

ment nor, for the want of the averment of any matter unnecessary to
be proved, nor for the omission of the words "as appears by the record,"
or of the words "with force and arms," nor for the insertion of the
words "against the form of the statute," instead of "against the form
of the statutes," or vice versa, nor for omitting to state the time at which
the offense was committed in any case where time is not of the essence
of the offense, nor for stating the time imperfectly, nor for stating the
offense to have been committed on a day subsequent to the finding of
the indictment or making the presentment, or on an impossible day, or
on a day that never happened, or by reason of any mere defect or im-
perfection in matters of form which shall not tend to the prejudice of
the defendant, nor for any matter or cause which might have been a
subject of demurrer to the indictment, inquisition or presentment.

Demurrer.

Since the adoption of this section, the usual and only proper mode of
testing the constitutionality of a statute under which a party is indicted
is by demurrer to the indictment. Foote v. State, 59 Md. 266.

This section referred to in overruling a contention that since there was
one good count in the indictment the judgment, could not be reversed for
erroneous rulings on demurrers to other counts; the demurrers being to
each count and the verdict being general, no means exist of determining
upon which count the verdict was rendered or whether rendered upon all.
Avirett v. State, 76 Md. 527.

If an indictment charges an act to be a felony which is not a felony, the
error must be taken advantage of by demurrer. Hawthorne v. State, 56
Md. 533.

That the act charged against the traverser is not an offense within the
true meaning of the law under which the indictment is drawn, or that the
law itself is unconstitutional, are subjects of demurrer and, since the adop-
tion of this section, can be raised in no other way. Cowman v. State, 12
Md. 253. And see Spielman v. State, 27 Md. 524; Ceart'oss v. State, 42
Md. 405.

Since an indictment for arson which omits to charge a "burning" is de-
murrable, the defect cannot be availed of by motion in arrest of judgment;
nor can the judgment be reversed if no demurrer was filed. Cochran v
State, 6 Md. 405.

An indictment being substantially defective and the objection being raised
by demurrer, this section held to have no application. Kearney v. State, 4&
Md. 25.

This section applied, the objections to the indictment being held to be
subjects of demurrer. State v. Reed, 12 Md. 272; Costly v. State, 48 Md.
177; State v. Phelps, 9 Md. 26; Davis v. State, 39 Md. 385; State v. Wade,
55 Md. 41; Wedge v. State, 12 Md. 235; Kellenbeck v. State, 10 Md. 437.
And see Norwood v. State, 45 Md. 71.

Generally.

This section held to have no application where there are several counts,
in an indictment charging the traverser with more than one distinct and
separate felony; in point of law it is no objection that two or more
offenses of the same nature and upon which the same or a similar judg-
ment may be given are contained in different counts of the same Indict-
ment; therefore, it forms no ground for a motion in arrest, nor can the
objection be taken by demurrer. State v. Blakeney, 90 Md. 713; State v.
McNally, 55 Md. 562.

This section applied to a motion to quash an indictment under section
437, because it did not contain the allegation that the traverser was licensed
to sell or was a trader. Object of this section. State v. Edlavitch, 77 Md.
145; Maguire v. State, 47 Md. 494.