1142 ARTICLE 27.

Indictments—Conclusion of—Joinder of Counts.

An. Code, sec. 497. 1904, sec. 439. 1888, sec. 287. 1852, ch. 63, see. 3.

554. All indictments for offenses forbidden by any statute or statutes,
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 misdemeanor 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.

An. Code, sec. 498. 1904, sec. 440. 1888, sec. 288. 1835, ch. 319, sec. 2.

555. 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.

Exceptions to bill of particulars filed under this section, properly overruled—see
notes to sec. 139. Lyman v. State, 136 Md. 48.

The office of bill of particulars is first to inform defendant of names of state's
witnesses and secondly to furnish him a statement of the false pretenses relied on;
bill of particulars is no part of pleading 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 defendant proper information or when it sets
forth evidence which is not admissible at the trial. Bill of particulars held sufficient.
Jules v. State, 85 Md. 309; Schaurnloeffel v. State, 102 Md. 473.

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

Indictment for false pretenses alleging that 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 bill
of particulars setting forth false pretense, is sufficient. Carnell v. State, 85 Md. 1.
And see State v. Blizzard, 70 Md. 387; Armacost v. State, 133 Md. 292.

This section referred to in sustaining the validity of sec. 561. Keifer v. State,
87 Md. 565.

As to false pretenses, see sec. 139, et seq., and notes.

Indictments—Gaming—Lotteries—Amendment.

An. Code, sec. 499. 1904, sec. 441. 1888, sec. 289. 1856, ch. 195, secs. 1, 10.

556. In any indictment for violation of the law prohibiting gaming,
or for violation of the law prohibiting the drawing of lotteries or the sell-
ing of lottery tickets or other device in the nature thereof, it shall not be
necessary to set forth the particular kind of gaming or gaming table, or
to set forth the particular scheme of lottery, but it shall be sufficient if the
indictment sets forth that the defendant kept a " gaming table," or that
"he drew a lottery," or sold a " lottery ticket," as the case may be, but the
defendant may, by application to the State's attorney, obtain a statement
more particularly describing the offense intended to be proved under such
indictment.

This section applied to indictment for gambling. Wheeler v. State, 42 Md. 567.

As to gaming, see sec. 244, et seq.

As to lotteries, see sec. 336, et seq.