State v. Clark

Decision Date31 December 1859
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. J. F. CLARK.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

In an indictment for Arson, under the 2nd section of the 34th chapter of the Revised Code, it was Held that a house built for, and at one time occupied as, a dwelling house, but untenanted at the time of the burning, was not within the meaning of that act.

Where, upon a charge for arson, a special verdict was rendered, finding that the defendant did wilfully and maliciously burn a dwelling-house, which was at the time uninhabited, it was Held that the Court might proceed to judgment as for a misdemeanor, under the 103d section of the 34th chapter of the Revised Code.

THIS was an indictment for ARSON, tried before HEATH, J., at the Fall Term, 1859, of Gaston Superior Court.

The house, which the defendant was charged with burning, was built for a dwelling-house, and had once been occupied as such, but was untenanted at the time of the burning. Under a charge from the Court upon the facts, the jury found a special verdict as follows: “That John F. Clark, the prisoner at the bar, is guilty, wilfully and maliciously of burning the dwelling-house, in manner and form as charged in the bill of indictment; but that said dwelling-house, when burned, was an uninhabited house, though it was built as a dwelling-house, and had before that time been inhabited.” Upon this verdict, judgment was directed to be entered for the defendant. Appeal by the State.

Attorney General, for the State .

Thompson, for the defendant .

MANLY, J.

There are several considerations which bring our minds to the conclusion, that dwelling-house in the section of the statute, under which this indictment is framed, means an inhabited house.

An adequate reason for so high a penalty is only to be found in the supposition, that the Legislature intended to restrict it to inhabited houses.

We find it grouped with other buildings, such as a barn, with grain in it, mills and manufactories, which are of special value on account of their contents, and on that account, as we suppose, are all put upon the same penal footing.

And we find the Legislature, in the 103 section of the same chapter of the Code, providing that the burning of uninhabited houses, shall be a misdemeanor only.

By a reference to this last section, it will be perceived, by necessary implication from the context, that the uninhabited house spoken of, is a house that is fitted for habitation, but is unoccupied...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Vickers
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 2 d3 Junho d3 1982
    ... ... Id ...         This court has held that "dwelling house" as contemplated in the definition of arson means an inhabited house. State v. Clark, 52 N.C. 167 (1859). We reject defendant's attempt to equate inhabit with occupy. In Black's Law Dictionary 703 (Rev. 5th ed. 1979), we find that inhabit is "synonymous with dwell, live, reside, sojourn, stay, rest"; occupy is not listed as a synonym ...         In State v. Gulley, 46 ... ...
  • State v. Long, 579
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 13 d5 Janeiro d5 1956
    ... ... 169; Bishop's Directions and Forms, Sec. 179. See State v. Anderson, 228 N.C. 720, 722, 47 S.E.2d 1, 2, where it is said the common law arson bill charged: '(1) The willful and malicious burning of the dwelling house of Willie Belle Cratch' et al.; and indictment in State v. Clark, 52 N.C. 167, in the original record in the clerk's office ...         Arson, at common law, is an offense against the security of habitation, rather than the safety of the property. It was intended to protect the habitation of man, and the crime was not committed, unless the house was ... ...
  • State v. Rowland Lumber Co
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 12 d3 Outubro d3 1910
  • State v. Rowland Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 12 d3 Outubro d3 1910
    ... ... structures from their landlord's premises, add they ... appeal. Reversed ...          A. McL ... Graham and H. A. Grady, for appellants ...          Geo. L ... Jones, Atty. Gen., for the State ...          CLARK, ...          The ... defendant lumber company and three of its employés were ... convicted for tearing down and removing a stable and fence, ... in violation of Revisal 1905, § 3686. That section provides: ... "If any tenant shall, during his term or after its ... expiration, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT