State v. Bloodworth
| Decision Date | 28 February 1886 |
| Citation | 94 N.C. 918 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM BLOODWORTH. |
This was an INDICTMENT against the defendant, for not keeping a fence five feet high around his cultivated field during crop season in the year 1885, tried before Meares, Judge, in the Criminal Court of NEW HANOVER county, at the September Term, 1885, of said court.
The jury returned the following special verdict, to-wit:
Whereupon, the Court being of opinion that the defendant is not guilty, gave judgment for the defendant, and he was discharged.
From this judgment of the Court, the Solicitor appealed to the Supreme Court.
Atterney-General, for the State .
No counsel for the defendant.
ASHE, J., (after stating the facts).
The indictment was preferred under §2799 of The Code, which is as follows: “Every planter shall make a sufficient fence about his cleared ground under cultivation, at least five feet high, unless there shall be some navigable stream or deep water course, that shall be sufficient instead of such fence, and unless his lands shall be situated within the limits of a county, township or district, where the stock law may be in force.”
The statute, it will be seen, contains two exceptions, the one that there is a navigable stream or deep water course that shall be sufficient instead of the fence, and the other, that the land is situated within the limits of a county, township, or district, where the stock law may be in force.
The exceptions are contained in the enacting clause, and therefore constitute a part of the description of the offence, and in every indictment under the statute, it is necessary that they should be negotiatived, in order that the description of the crime may in all respect correspond with the statute. 1 Bishop Cr. Pro., §376; State v. Heaton, 81 N. C., 542; State v. Lanier, 88 N. C., 658.
It is equally essential in a special verdict, that all the facts necessary to constitute the offence charged, should be fully and explicitly stated, to warrant the Court in pronouncing a judgment upon the verdict. State v. Blue, 84 N. C., 807; State v. Bray, 89...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Surles
...supra; State v. Mallett, supra; State v. Pierce, 123 N.C. 745, 31 S.E. 847; State v. Addington, 121 X.C. 538, 27 S.E. 988; State v. Bloodworth, 94 N.C. 918. G.S. § 14-1, in and of itself, makes felonies of all offenses specifically punishable by imprisonment in the State prison notwithstand......
-
State v. Surles
...supra; State v. Mallett, supra; State v. Pierce, 123 N.C. 745, 31 S.E. 847; State v. Addington, 121 N.C. 538, 27 S.E. 988; State v. Bloodworth, 94 N.C. 918. G.S. 14-1, in and of itself, makes felonies of all offenses specifically punishable by imprisonment in the State prison notwithstandin......
-
State v. Fisher
...presumption, essential to the defendant's guilt; otherwise the court should set the finding aside and direct a venire de novo. State v. Bloodworth, 94 N.C. 918; State v. Corporation, 111 N.C. 661 State v. Oakley, 103 N.C. 408 ." This declaration of the law is significant, and bears directly......
-
State v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... Castle's Case, Cro. Jac. 64, 1 Salk. 45, and Rex v ... Robinson, 2 Burr. 803, which we have already mentioned ... as English cases sustaining the rule. The case of State v ... Snuggs was expressly approved in State v ... Bloodworth, 94 N.C. 918, and by the strongest ... implication in State v. Parker, 91 N.C. 650, and ... State v. Addington, 121 N.C. 538, 27 S.E. 988. There ... is no sound reason for, and, not intending to use too harsh a ... term, no practical sense in, the distinction between a ... statute which ... ...