1144 ARTICLE 27.

ment, whenever it shall become necessary to make any averment as to
money, it shall be sufficient to describe said money as so much current
money, or so many dollars, or dollars and cents current money, without
specifying any particular coins, or notes, or certificates, circulating as
money, or other species of money; and such allegation, so far as regards
the description of the money, shall be sustained by proof of any amount
of coin, or notes or certificates circulating as money or other species of
money, although the particular species of coin, or notes or certificates cir-
culating as money, or other species of money, of which said amount was
composed, shall not be proved.

An indictment for larceny held sufficient in view of this section, both as to the
money alleged to have been stolen and as to allegation of ownership; surplusage.
State v. King, 95 Md. 128.

As to defaulters, see sec. 88.

As to embezzling property and writings, see sec. 126, et seq.

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

As to larceny, see sec. 318, et seq.

As to the penalty for robbery, see sec. 481.

Indictments—Arson or Burning.

An. Code, sec. 503. 1904, sec. 445. 1904, ch. 267, sec. 291D.

560. In any indictment for arson or burning, where it shall be neces-
sary to allege that the person or persons accused did the act with intent
thereby to injure or defraud, it shall be sufficient to allege that the person
or persons accused committed the act with intent to injure or defraud,
without alleging an intent to injure or defraud any particular person;
and upon the trial of any person for the offense of arson or burning no
higher or more conclusive proof shall be required than is required at the
trial of other criminal cases.
As to arson, see sec. 6, et seq.

Indictments—Selling Liquor.

An. Code, sec. 504. 1904, sec. 446. 1890, ch. 429, sec. 288A. 1890, ch. 492, sec. 288A

561. In any indictment for the unlawful sale or disposition of spiritu-
ous or fermented liquors or lager beer, it shall not be necessary to specify
the particular variety, provided the indictment sets forth an unlawful
sale or disposition of intoxicating liquor, but the defendant, on applica-
tion to the State's attorney before trial, may obtain a statement of the
particular variety of liquor expected to be proved.

Indictment under act of 1890, ch. 568, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors,
except cider by maker thereof not to be drunk on the premises in Annapolis, held
valid though it did not name the kind of liquor traverser is accused of selling, nor
negative cider. See notes to sec. 533. Howes v. State, 141 Md. 547.

This section is constitutional and valid. Keifer v. State, 87 Md. 564.

This section referred to in sustaining indictment for violation of a local law for
Harford county relative to sale of liquor. Curry v. State, 117 Md. 590.

See secs. 471, et seq., and 483, et seq.

Indictments—Violation of City or Town Ordinances.

An. Code, sec. 505. 1904, sec. 447. 1900, ch. 131, sec. 291C.

562. In every indictment for the violation of any ordinance of any in-
corporated city or town of this State, it shall not be necessary to set forth