CONTRA F 0 RMAM STATUTI (Lat. against the form of the statute). The formal man ner of alleging that the offence described in an indictment is one forbidden by statute.
When one statute prohibits a thing and another gives the penalty, in an action for the penalty the declaration should conclude contra formam statutorum; Plowd. 206 ; 2 East 333. The same rule applies to informa tions and indictments ; 2 Hale, Pl. Cr. 172. But where a statute refers to a former one, and adopts and continues the provisions of it, the declaration or indictment should con clude contra formam statuti; Hale, Pl. Cr. 172. Where a thing is prohibited by statutes, if one only gives the action and the others are explanatory and restrictive, the conclusion should be contra formam sta tuti; 2 Saund. 377.
When the act prohibited was not an of fence or ground of action at common law, it is necessary both in criminal and civil cases to conclude against the form of the statute or statutes ; 1 Saund. 135 c; 1 Chit. Pl. 556 ; Corn. v. Inhabitants of Stockbridge, 11 Mass. 280 ; Cross v. U. S., 1 30, Fed. Cas. No. 3,434.
But if the act prohibited by the statute is an offence or ground of action at common law, the indictment or action may be in the common-law form, and the statute need not be noticed even though it prescribe a form of prosecution or of action,—the statute rem edy being merely cumulative; Co. 2d Inst.
200 ; 2 Burr. 803; 3 id. 1418 ; 4 id. Z351; 2 Wils. 146; Com. v. Holey, 16 Mass. 385.
When a statute only inflicts a punish ment on that which was an offence at com mon law, the punishment prescribed may be inflicted though the statute is not noticed in the indictment ; Com. v. Searle, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 332, 4 Am. Dec. 446.
If an indictment for an offence at com mon law only conclude "against the form of the statute in such case made and pro vided ;" or "the form of the statute" gen erally, the conclusion will be rejected as sur plusage, and the indictment maintained as at common law ; 1 Saund. 135 n. 3 ; Com. v. Hoxey, 16 Mass. 385 ; Com. v. Shattuck, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 143. But it will be otherwise if it conclude against the form of "the stat ute aforesaid," when a statute has been pre viously recited ; 1 Chit. Cr. L. 289. See, fur ther, Com. Dig. Pleader (C,) 76; 5 Viner, Abr. 552, 556 ; Cross v. U. S., 1 Gall. 26, Fed. Cas. No. 3,434 ; Sears v. U. S., 1 Gall. 257, Fed. Cas. No. 12,592 ; Scroter v. Harrington, 8 N. C. 192 ; Town of Barkhamsted v. Par sons, 3 Conn. 1; Com. v. Inhabitants of Stockbriage, 11 Mass. 280 ; Barter v. Martin, 5 Green]. (Me.) 79.