State v. Brown
| Decision Date | 30 September 1794 |
| Citation | 2 N.C. 100 |
| Parties | STATE v. BROWN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
A horse stolen in one State or Territory and carried into another will not make it a felony in the latter State. A special verdict which states the felonious taking in one State, and the taking continued into another, cannot be supported as a felonious taking in the latter.
INDICTMENT for stealing a horse in the county of BURKE. The jury found specially that the felony was committed in the territory south of the Ohio, and that the trespass was continued into this State, where he was taken.
The Attorney-General cited Hale's Pl. Cr., 507, 508, and Haw. P. C., 90, and he insisted that as the asportation into another county is in law a new taking in this latter county, so a taking out of this State, and an
asportation into it, is a new taking here, and so the prisoner is guilty of felony here. He cited a case which he had from the information of Mr. Avery, who was now present and affirmed it, that while he was Attorney-General, a man was tried at Hillsboro who had stolen a horse in the county of Mecklenburg, in Virginia, and brought it into this State; and this appearing upon evidence a doubt was conceived whether he was guilty of felony against the law of this State; but H. H. P. C. being cited and relied upon, the Court upon deliberation were of opinion it was a felony punishable by the laws of this State, and the man was hanged.
If this man were tried and condemned here, or tried and acquitted here, would the sentence of this Court be pleadable in bar to an indictment preferred against him in the territory south of the Ohio ? I think it would not; because the offense against the laws of this State and the offense against the laws of that country are distinct; and satisfaction made for the offense committed against this State is no satisfaction for the offense committed against the laws there. The consequences, then, of trying this man here and condemning him will be that if a man steals a horse in one part of the continent and goes with him to another, through several States, the culprit, according to the several laws of each State, being guilty of a taking in each, may be cropped in one, branded and whipped in another; imprisoned in a third, and hanged in a fourth; and all for one and the same offense. This is against natural justice, and therefore I cannot believe it to be law. When a man steals in this State, and carries the thing stolen into another county, he is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamble v. United States
...sovereigns unjust and holding them unlawful appears right on the face of the first state case that Gamble discusses. In State v. Brown , 2 N. C. 100, 101 (1794), the court opined that it would be "against natural justice" for a man who stole a horse in the Ohio Territory to be punished for ......
-
State v. Batdorf
...majority rule. We have recognized from earliest times that the criminal jurisdiction of our courts is territorially restricted. State v. Brown, 2 N.C. 100 (1794); State v. Knight, 1 N.C. 143 (1799); State v. Cutshall, 110 N.C. 538, 15 S.E. 261 (1892); State v. Jones, 227 N.C. 94, 40 S.E.2d ......
-
Van Buren v. State
...two foreign countries. Holding to the same doctrine and views as heretofore expressed by this court are the following: State v. Brown, 2 N. C. 100, 1 Am. Dec. 548;State v. Reonnals, 14 La. Ann. 276;Beal v. State, 15 Ind. 378;Lee v. State, 64 Ga. 203, 37 Am. Rep. 67; State v. Le Blanch, 31 N......
-
State v. Buchanan
...guilty, though he may have taken the money. This we understand to be the law of this state, and it was so held as early as State v. Brown, 2 N. C. 100, 1 Am. Dec. 548, which has been cited with approval in State v. Cutshall, 110 N. C. 538, 15 S. E. 261, 16 L. R. A. 130; State v. Hall, 114 N......