ART. 27] INDICTMENTS. 469

The words "current money" in an indictment under section 285, charging
the property stolen to be worth so many dollars "current money," held to
be mere surplusage and not a ground of reversal under this section. Gard-
ner v. State, 25 Md. 151.

This section held not to do away with the authority of a court to strike
out a judgment during the term at which it is rendered. State v. Butler,
72 Md. 100.

An indictment charging that the traverser was a free negress when upon
the trial it turned out that she was a slave, upheld under this section. Negro
Hammond v. State, 14 Md. 148.

This section referred to in refusing to review the action of the trial
court in declining to accept a plea in abatement. Cooper v. State, 64 Md. 44.

An information sustained without reference to this section. Acton v.
State, 80 Md. 551.

Indictments—Conclusion of—Joinder of Counts.

1904, art. 27, sec. 439. 1888, art. 27, sec. 287. 1860, art. 30, sec. 83.
1852, ch. 63, sec. 3.

497. All indictments for offenses forbidden by any statute or stat-
utes, or for offenses the punishment of which is contained in the same
clause of any statute with the prohibition of the offense, may conclude
as for offenses at common law, and where any offense which is a mis-
demeanor at common law may have been made a felony by statute the
misdemeanor shall not be merged in the felony, but the indictment may
contain counts for the said felony and also for the misdemeanor.

Indictments—False Pretenses.

Ibid. sec. 440. 1888. art. 27, sec. 28S. 1860, art. 30, sec. 84.
1835, ch. 319, sec. 2.

498. In any indictment for false pretenses it shall not be necessary
to state the particular false pretenses intended to be relied on in proof
of the same, but the defendant, on application to the State's attorney
before the trial, shall be entitled to the names of the witnesses and a
statement of the false pretenses intended to be given in evidence.

The office of a bill of particulars is first to inform the defendant of the
names of the state's witnesses and secondly to furnish him a statement of
the false pretenses relied on; the bill of particulars is no part of the plead-
ing or indictment, and not subject to demurrer; it may be amended. The
bill of particulars may be excepted to when it is not satisfactory, as when
it fails to give the defendant proper information or when it sets forth evi-
dence which is not admissible at the trial. Bill of particulars held suffi-
cient. Jules v. State, 85 Md. 309: Schaumloeffel v. State, 102 Md. 473.

This section does not restrict the state's attorney to the list of witnesses
furnished the defendant, nor does it control or affect the competency of
the witnesses; the trial court may in its discretion allow the state to exam-
ine witnesses other than those whose names were furnished the defendant
under this section. Cairnes v. Pelton, 103 Md. 44; Schaumloeffel v. State,
102 Md. 473.

An indictment for false pretenses alleging that the traverser obtained
from A and B, by a false pretense made to them, certain property of the
goods and chattels of the said A and B with intent to defraud, etc., the
indictment being accompanied by a bill of particulars setting forth the
false pretense, is sufficient. Oarnell v. State, 85 Md. 1. And see State v.
Blizzard, 70 Md. 387.

This section referred to in sustaining the validity of section 504. Keifer
v. State, 87 Md. 565.

As to false pretenses, see section 122, et seq.