Roe

The defendant was indicted and tried for and convicted of the crime of violating certain provisions of the act of the legislature of 1919 penalizing what is generically described by said act as “criminal syndicalism.” (Stats. 1919, p. 281.) He presented a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and the appeals are from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The defendant, for a reversal of the judgment and the order, contends: 1. That the indictment is violative of sections 950, 951, and 952 of the Penal Code, in that the purported statement therein of the act or acts constituting the offense sought to be charged is not set forth “in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended,” that it does not conform to the form of an indictment as is exemplified by section 951, and that it is lacking in directness and certainty as to “the particular circumstances of the offense charged,” the claim being that, to state the offense which is by the indictment attempted to be lodged against the accused, the circumstances essential to the completion of said offense under the statute must be set forth with particularity; 2. That error…