Opinion · Nclaw North Carolina

STATE v. HADDOCK, 3 N.C. 162 (1802)

3 N.C. 162

Type
Opinion
Court
Nclaw North Carolina
Jurisdiction
Nclaw
Date
1802-01-01
Topic
general

STATE v. HADDOCK, 3 N.C. 162 (1802) STATE v. HADDOCK.Superior Court of North Carolina (Spring Riding, 1802.) 1. An appeal will lie for the State when the defendant is acquitted on an indictment in the county court as well as for the defendant upon conviction. 2. If the county court arrests judgment on an indictment, an appeal lies as well as a writ of error. 3.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. HADDOCK, 3 N.C. 162 (1802). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATEv. HADDOCK,3 N.C. 162(1802)
STATE v. HADDOCK.
Superior Court of North Carolina
(Spring Riding, 1802.)
1. An appeal will lie for the State when the defendant is acquitted on an indictment in the county court as well as for the defendant upon conviction.

2. If the county court arrests judgment on an indictment, an appeal lies as well as a writ of error.

3. An indictment for larceny should state in whom the property of the thing stolen is; or that it is the property of some person unknown; and the omission of such statement is not cured by the act of 1784 (1 Rev. Stat., ch. 35, sec. 12).
DEFENDANT was indicted in the County Court of PITT, for stealing a heifer, the property of Adams, and a bell of the value of ten pence; and he was convicted as to the bell. He moved an arrest of judgment because it was not set forth whose property the bell was. The county court arrested the judgment, and the attorney for the State appealed; and after argument,
(163) JOHNSTON, J., decided the following points:
First, that an appeal will lie for the State where the defendant is acquitted or otherwise discharged upon an indictment, as well as for thePage 169defendant who is convicted. Though, he said, were thisres integra, he should not be of that opinion upon the words of the acts relative to appeals. Secondly, in this case an appeal lies as well as a writ of error. Thirdly, the indictment should state in whom the property was, or that it was the property of some person unknown; otherwise, he could not plead in bar to another indictment for the same case. It was, therefore, not uniformality or refinement within the act of Assembly, but a matter of substance not cured by it.

Judgment arrested.

NOTE. — This case, so far as it decides that an appeal lies for the State upon the acquittal of the defendant, has been overruled byS. v.Jones,5 N.C. 257.Cited: S. v. Gallimore,24 N.C. 376;S. v. Hill,79 N.C. 659;S. v.Ostwalt,118 N.C. 1220;S. v. Ford,168 N.C. 166.