State v. Gillikin

• Decision Date: 20 March 1894
• Parties: STATE v. GILLIKIN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

19 S.E. 152

114 N.C. 832

STATE v. GILLIKIN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 20, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Carteret county; Bryan, Judge.

John E. Gillikin was adjudged guilty of failure to render road duty, and appeals. Affirmed.

The fact that defendant had no occasion to use the road on which he was assigned to duty is no defense to a prosecution for failure to render road duty.

Simmons, Gibbs & Pearsall and T. B. Womack, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

CLARK, J.

The special verdict finds that all the requirements existed which rendered the defendant liable to road duty, and the court had power to amend the warrant as it did. State v. Pool, 106 N.C. 698, 10 S.E. 1033. The defendant failed to render such duty when duly summoned, and was properly adjudged to be guilty. The fact that defendant did not use, and had no occasion to use, the road to which he was assigned, is no defense. His assignment to any particular road rested with the board of supervisors of the township. Code, § 2016. There is nothing tending to show that such board acted fraudulently, oppressively, or beyond their powers. As to the point raised upon the form of the special verdict, there is some discrepancy between the earlier practice, as stated in State v. Moore, 29 N.C. 228, and a later practice sanctioned in State v. Moore, 107 N.C. 770, 12 S.E. 249, and cases there cited. This was brought to the attention of the court in State v. Ewing, 108 N.C. 755, 13 S.E. 10, and after "mature consideration" it was there held that either practice would be sufficient, but that the older practice, as stated in State v. Moore, 29 N.C. 228, was the better one. That is the course which has been followed in the present instance. No error.