State v. Jackson
Decision Date | 31 August 1851 |
Citation | 34 N.C. 329,12 Ired. 329 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | THE STATE v. RUEL JACKSON. |
An indictment for malicious mischief must either expressly charge malice against the owner, or fully otherwise describe the offence.
Setting forth in the indictment that the act was done “feloniously, wilfully and maliciously,” without averring that it was done “mischievously,” or with malice against the owner, is not sufficient.
The cases of the State v Robinson, 3 Dev. & Bat. 130; State v Cockman, 1 Ire. 381; State v Simpson, 2 Hawk. 460, and State v Scott, 2 Dev. & Bat. 35, cited and approved.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Surry county, Spring Term, 1851, his Honor Judge BATTLE presiding.
The defendant was indicted for malicious mischief, in burning, and thereby destroying, two ploughs and gears, upon the following indictment:
+---------------------------------------------------+ ¦State of North Carolina, ¦)¦Superior Court of Law,¦ +--------------------------+-+----------------------¦ ¦Surry County. ¦)¦Fall Term, 1850. ¦ +---------------------------------------------------+
“The Jurors for the State upon their oath present, that Ruel Jackson, late of the county of Surry, laborer, on the first day of April, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, eight hundred and fifty, with force and arms, in the county aforesaid, into a certain field, there situate, then and there did enter said field, then being in the possession of one Winston Fulton, and the said Ruel Jackson, in the field aforesaid, two ploughs and two sets of horse-gears, the property of the said Winston Fulton, then and there being, then and there feloniously, wilfully and maliciously did set fire to and burn, against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
Upon this indictment the defendant was convicted; and appealed from the judgment on the conviction. The question, presented by the case, will be found in the opinion of the Court.
Attorney General for the State .
Boyden, for the defendant .
The defendant is indicted for malicious mischief, in burning a couple of ploughs and gears belonging to the prosecutor. The crime consists in the wilful destruction of personal property, from actual ill-will or resentment towards its owner or possessor. State v Robinson, 3 Dev. & Bat. 130--4 Bl. Com. 254. The charge of his Honor was, in every respect, correct. There cannot be a doubt, that the acts charged upon the defendant, if true, amounted to malicious mischief, nor did it make any difference where the articles destroyed were found by him, or where burnt; the crime was complete. The judgment, therefore, would be confirmed, but for a fatal defect in the indictment itself. There was no motion below to arrest the judgment, and, of course, the indictment was not particularly brought to the notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Martin
...also have been committed with malice towards the owner of the property. State v. Robinson, supra; State v. Landreth, 4 N. C. 331; State v. Jackson, 34 N.C. 329; State Sheets, 89 N.C. 543. And the indictment must either expressly charge malice against the owner or fully otherwise describe th......
-
State v. Lightfoot
... ... If malice is an ... essential ingredient of the offense, it must be charged, and ... the use of the words "willfully and unlawfully" is ... not sufficient. Boyd v. State, 21 Tenn. 39, 2 Hum ... 39; Thompson v. State, 51 Miss. 353; State v ... Jackson, 34 N.C. 329; Com. v. Williams, 110 ... Mass. 401; State v. Newby, 64 N.C. 23. The case of ... State v. Gould, 40 Iowa 372, is not in conflict with ... this conclusion. The indictment in that case was framed under ... section 4089 of the Code of 1873, not under 3979, and malice ... is not an ... ...
-
State v. Cannady
...or possessor of the property. It is an element of preconceived revenge. State v. Martin, 141 N.C. 832, 53 S.E. 874 (1906); State v. Jackson, 34 N.C. 329 (1851); State v. Robinson, 20 N.C. 129 Although the word 'feloniously' implies that the act charged to have been done proceeded from 'an e......
-
State v. Lightfoot
...and the use of the words “willfully and unlawfully” is not sufficient. Boyd v. State, 2 Humph. 39;Thompson v. State, 51 Miss. 353;State v. Jackson, 34 N. C. 329;Com. v. Williams, 110 Mass. 401;State v. Newby, 64 N. C. 23. The case of State v. Gould, 40 Iowa, 372, is not in conflict with thi......