State v. Blythe
| Decision Date | 30 June 1835 |
| Citation | 18 N.C. 199 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ZACHARIAH BLYTHE. |
An indictment under the Act of 1820, ch. 13, charging that the defendant, on a particular day, and on divers other days before that day, sold and delivered spirits to certain slaves whose names were to the jurors unknown, is defective for uncertainty in embracing the transactions of divers days with divers persons. And as the names of the slaves were not given, it is also defective for not stating the owners of the slaves, or averring that the owners were unknown, if the fact were so.
THIS was an indictment in the following form: "The jurors for the State upon their oaths present, that Zachariah Blythe, late of said county, on the twenty-sixth day of October, 1834, and on divers other daysand times before said day, at and in the county aforesaid, did unlawfully traffic with, sell, and deliver to certain negro slaves, whose names are to the jurors as yet unknown, a quantity of spirituous liquors, not having then and there any written authority from the owners of said slaves to sell and deliver the spirits aforesaid, contrary to the act of the General Assembly in such case provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State."
The defendant being convicted of the offense charged in the indictment, a motion in arrest of judgment was submitted by his counsel, which, being sustained by his Honor, Judge Norwood, at NORTHAMPTON, on the last circuit, the Attorney-General appealed.
1. Because it charged the selling to be to a number of slaves in gross, on a certain day and divers other days, whereas it should have been for one act of selling to one or many slaves, or for frequent acts of selling to one slave.
2. Because the slaves to whom the spirits were sold were not specified, either by their own names or by those of their masters, and no good reason was stated for the omission. He contended, in support of this objection, that the names of the owners of the slaves should have been charged, because that knowledge might have been of service to the
defendant in his defense; but if the names of the owners were unknown, then that fact should have been distinctly averred in the indictment.
RUFFIN, C. J. We concur in the opinion given by the Judge of the Superior Court, that the indictment is defective, and that the judgment must be arrested. It charges that the defendant, on a particular day, and on divers other days and times before that day, sold and delivered spirituous liquors "to certain slaves, whose names to the jurors are as yet unknown."
Every indictment ought to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bissette
...N.C. 511; State v. Trice, 88 N.C. 627; State v. Pickens, 79 N.C. 652; State v. Stamey, 71 N.C. 202; State v. Faucett, 20 N.C. 239; State v. Blythe, 18 N.C. 199. King v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 453, 286 S.W.2d 422 is the only case we have found which is based on the sale of falsely labeled agri......
-
State v. Tisdale
...In State v. Stamey, the identical point is decided, as it was in Faucett's Case; both being indictments for selling liquor. In State v. Blythe, 18 N.C. 199, decided 1835, the question seems to have been first presented to this court. It is there held, in an opinion by Chief Justice Ruffin, ......
-
Fletcher v. State
... ... whom it was committed. A conviction upon this bill could not ... be pleaded in bar of another indictment for the same offense ... An indictment charging the defendant with selling spirits to ... slaves is not good unless their names are given. State v ... Blythe, 18 N.C. 199. So to charge a white man with ... playing cards with a slave without naming him. State v ... Ritchie, 19 N.C. 29. The purpose of setting forth the ... name of the person on whom the offense has been committed is ... to identify the particular fact or transaction on which the ... ...
-
State v. Jones
...861 (1959) (misleadingly-labeled tobacco seed); see also State v. Bennett, 280 N.C. 167, 185 S.E.2d 147 (1971) (narcotics); State v. Blythe, 18 N.C. 199 (1835) (spiritous liquors). In Bissette, the Court explained the reasoning behind this holding: The authorities are in unison that an indi......