There were two bills of indictment against the prisoner at the same term, one for burglary and larceny and the other for robbery. On the first indictment the prisoner was found guilty of larceny and not guilty of burglary. It was argued that he could not be put on trial for the second indictment because it would conflict with the principle that no one shall be twice put in peril for the same crime. The lower court quashed the second indictment for robbery. The prisoner was allowed benefit of clergy on the conviction for larceny. The attorney-general refused to pray judgment and the lower court judge then ordered the prisoner to be discharged. The prosecuting officer then appealed the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of the state. Discussion of simple larceny and mixed and compound larceny by the Supreme Court. It ruled that the lower court judge had been correct in discharging the prisoner.