State v. Hawkins
| Decision Date | 30 June 1877 |
| Citation | 77 N.C. 494 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. REUBEN HAWKINS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT agaist the defendant, as Overseer of the Poor, for cruel treatment to the paupers under his control, tried at Spring Term, 1877, of WILKES Superior Court, before Schenck, J.
There was a verdict of guilty, and the defendant moved in arrest of judgment upon the ground that the indictment was too vague and indefinite; in that, the names of the paupers alleged to have been maltreated did not appear. And it was insisted that the defendant was not an officer, and that the County Commissioners were the only officers criminally liable. The indictment is sufficiently set out in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice RODMAN. His Honor in the Court below overruled the motion in arrest, and gave judgment that the defendant be imprisoned four months in the County jail, from which the defendant appealed.
Attorney General, for the State .
No counsel for the defendant.
RODMAN J.
There can be no doubt that the defendant is a public officer in the sense of being liable at common law for any neglect of his duties and for any abuse of his powers. His appointment is provided for by Bat. Rev. ch. 88, § 1.
The meanness of the crime with which a defendant is charged, does not deprive him of the right to have applied to his case, the rules which the common law has provided for the ascertainment of guilt and the protection of innocence. One of these rules is that the indictment shall describe the offence with reasonable certainty, so that the accused may be informed of what he is to meet and prepare himself to meet it. In the present case the charge is, that the defendant being overseer of the poor house of Wilkes County “did unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly neglect and permit the said paupers so committed to his charge and care, to go without adequate, wholesome and suitable provision for their care and comfort, whereby the health and welfare of the said paupers were greatly injured and destroyed, by failing to provide suitable food and clothing for the said paupers, by failing to give them suitable food when sick, and failing to provide suitable and comfortable places for them to sleep and repose, and permitting others under him in authority and in his employ to treat them harshly, cruelly and abusively.”
This indictment is defective and uncertain, in not giving the names of the paupers to whom the defendant neglected to give suitable food, &c., or in not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ostwalt
...act shall be deemed a misdemeanor, without providing how it is to be punished. State v. Hatch, 116 N.C. 1005, 21 S.E. 430; State v. Hawkins, 77 N.C. 494; 1 Bish. Cr. Law, 940. "A fine," says Lord Coke (1 Co. Litt. 126b), "signifieth a pecuniary punishment for an offense or a contempt commit......
-
Williams v. Town of Greenville
...authorities might be indicted either as at common law, for maintaining a public nuisance, or for neglect of duty under the Code. State v. Hawkins, 77 N.C. 494; State v. Hatch, 116 N.C. 1003, 21 S.E. State v. Dickson, 124 N.C. 871, 32 S.E. 961. But there are very few private citizens, and es......
-
State v. Lackey
...in violation of the duties of his said office. It was held the facts alleged constituted an indictable offense at common law. In State v. Hawkins, 77 N.C. 494, the Court, in opinion by Rodman, J., states: 'There can be no doubt that the defendant is a public officer in the sense of being li......
-
State v. Hatch
...in this respect, and, under the instruction given by the court, the jury must have concluded that the neglect was willful. In State v. Hawkins, 77 N. C. 494, it is held that any public officer is liable to indictment at common law for any willful neglect of his duties or any abuse of his po......