State v. Haddock
| Citation | 3 N.C. 162 |
| Parties | STATE v. HADDOCK. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1802 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
1. An appeal will lie for the State, when the defendant is acquitted on an indictment in the County Court as well as for the defendant upon conviction.
2. If the County Court arrests judgment on an indictment, an appeal lies as well as a writ of error.
3. An indictment for larceny should state in whom the property of the thing stolen is: or that it is the property of some person unknown; and the omission of such statement is not cured by the act of 1784, (1 Rev. Stat. ch. 35, sec. 12.)
He was indicted in the County Court of Pitt, for stealing a heifer, the property of Adams, and a bell of the value of ten pence; and he was convicted as to the bell. He moved an arrest of judgment, because it was not set forth whose property the bell was. The County Court arrested the judgment, and attorney for the State appealed; and after argument, Johnston, Judge, decided the following points:
—First; that an appeal will lie for the State where the defendant is acquitted or otherwise discharged upon an indictment, as well as for the defendant who is convicted. Though, he said, were this res integra, he should not be of that opinion upon the words of the acts relative to appeals. Secondly; in this case an appeal is as well as a writ of error. Thirdly; the indictment should state in whom the property was, or that it was the property of some person unknown, otherwise he could not plead in bar to another indictment for the same case. It was, therefore, not informality or refinement within the act of Assembly, but a matter of substance not cured by it.
Judgment arrested.
NOTE.—This case, so far as it decides that an appeal lies for the State upon the acquittal of the defendant has been overruled by the case of The Stale v. Jones, 5 N. C., 257.
Cited. State v. Ostwalt, 118 N. C., 1220; State v. Gallimore, 24 N. C., 376; State v. Hill, 79 N. C., 659.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brady
...is tantamount to an acquittal on the charge of receiving. State v. Holbrook, 223 N.C. 622, 27 S.E.2d 725. Moreover, the case of State v. Haddock, 3 N.C. 162, cited as authority for the holding in State v. Pugh, supra, was one in which the defendant was only charged with larceny. There the C......
-
State v. Mckeithan
...104 N.C. 887, 10 S. E. 563. The ownership of the house is properly laid in the defendant and Campbell as tenants in common. State v. Haddock, 3 N.C. 162; State v. Harbert, 185 N.C. 760, 118 S. E. 6. The fact that these same parties own other houses in like capacity; is not ground for demurr......