DUPLICITY (Lat. duplev, twofold; dou ble). The union of more than one cause of action in one count in a writ, or more than one defence in one plea, or mare than a single breach in a replication. Jackson v. Rundlet, 1 W. & M. 381, Fed. Cas. No. 7,145. The union of several facts constituting together but one cause of action, or one de fence, or one breach, does not constitute du plicity; Torrey v. Field, 10 Vt. 353; Harker v. Brink, 24 N. J. L. 333 ; Holland v. Kibbe, 16 Ill. 133 ; Beckley v. Moore, 1• McCord (S. C.) 464; State v. Bank, 33 Miss. 474; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Buford, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 115, 21 S. W. 272; State v. Christmas, 101 N. C. 749, 8 S. E. 361; Merriman v. Mach. Co., 86 Wis. 142, 56 N. W. 743; State v. Warren, 77 Md. 121, 26 Atl. 500, 39 Am. St. Rep. 401; Tracy v. Corn., 87 Ky. 578, 9 S. W. 822. Though the joinder of two or more distinct offences in one count of an in dictment is faulty, yet where the acts im puted are component parts of the same of fence the pleading is not objectionable for duplicity; Farrell v. State, 54 N. J. L. 416, 24 All. 723; nor is it where one of the two offences charged is insufficiently set out; State v. Henn, 39 Minn. 476, 40 N. W. 572. It must be of causes on which the party re lies, and not merely matter introduced in explanation ; Dunning v. Owen, 14 Mass. 157. In trespass it is not duplicity to plead to part and justify or confess as to the resi due; Parker v. Parker, 17 Plck. (Mass.) 236. If only one defence be valid, the objection of duplicity is not sustained ; Porter v. Brack enridge, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 385.
It may exist in any part of the pleadings; the declaration; Morse v. Eaton, 23 N. H.
415; Jarman v. Windsor, 2 Harr. (Del.) 162; pleas ; Welch v. Jamison, 1 How. (Miss.) 160; replication; Benner v. Elliott, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 451; Calhoun v. Wright, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 74; Bennett v. Martin, 6 Mo. 460; or subse quent pleadings; Tebbets v. Tilton, 24 N. H. 120; United States v. Gurney, 1 Wash. C. C. 446, Fed. Cas. No. 15,271; and was at common law a fatal defect; Robinson v. Rice, 20 Mo. 229 ; to be reached on demurrer only; Cunningham v. Smith, 10 Graft. (Va.) 255, 60 Am. Dec. 333; King v. Howard, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 137; Gardiuer v. Miles, 5 Gill (Md.) 94; Benner v. Elliott, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 451; People v. Clement, 4 Cal. Unrep. 493, 35 Pac. 1022. The rules against duplicity did not extend to dilatory pleas so as to pre vent the use of the various classes in their proper order ; Co. Litt. 304 a; Steph. Pl. App. n. 56.
Owing to the statutory changes in the forms of pleading,, duplicity seems to be no longer a defect in many of the states, either in declarations; Blakeney v. Ferguson, 18 Ark. 347; pleas; King v. Howard, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 137; Bryan v. Buford, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 335; or replications; Zehnor v. Beard, 8 Ind. 96; though in some cases it is allowed only in the discretion of the court, for the furtherance of justice.
It is too late after verdict to object to du plicity in an information for a misdemeanor ; State v. Armstrong, 106 Mo. 395, 16 S. W. 604, 13 L. R. A. 419, 27 Am. St. Rep. 361.