Therefore, in an indictment on a statute - when the language of the statute does not describe it - the pleader is required to set out the acts or facts specifically to apprise the accused of the offense with which he is charged.15 It is not sufficient to allege the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves, fully and expressly, and without any uncertainty, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.16 So, when the subject-matter of the indictment cannot be brought within the meaning of the statute without the aid of extrinsic evidence, it is then necessary, besides charging the offense in the words of the statute, to aver such facts and circumstances as may be necessary to bring the matter within it.17 Thus, an indictment which charges the crime of embezzlement in the language of the statute is not sufficient, in that it omits the fiduciary character of the accused.18

12 Loehr vs. People, 132 Ill., 509; Glower vs. Poeple, 204 Ill., 170-174; Bolen vs. People, 184 Ill., 339; People vs. .Knowlton, 122 Cal., 357.

13 Riggs vs. State, 104 Ind., 261; State vs. Guiton, 51 La., 155; State vs. Dengolensky, 82 Mo., 45; State vs. Biddle, 54

N. H., 379; 2 McClain Cr. Law, Sec. 1273. 14 Ill. Stat., Chap. 38, Div. 1, Sec. 47. 15 Cochran vs. People, 175 Ill., 34;

Johnson vs. People, 113 Ill., 99;

West vs. People, 137 Ill., 196;

U. S. vs. Simmons, 96 U. S., 362.