State v. Krider
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. FOARD KRIDER and others. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for Larceny tried at Fall Term, 1877, of DAVIE Superior Court, before Cox, J.
The defendants were charged with stealing fish:--The jurors &c. present that (defendants) &c. five fish of the value &c. of the goods &c. then and there being found, did feloniously steal, take and carry away against &c. The names of both defendants were endorsed on the bill of indictment as witnesses, one against the other, and it was insisted by the counsel for defendants that to make co-defendants witnesses against each other before the grand jury was not warranted. No objection was made in the Court below as to the sufficiency of the bill, but the point was taken on the argument here. Verdict of Guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendants.
Attorney General for the State .
Messrs. J. M. Clement and W. H. Bailey, for the defendants .
The defendants were indicted and convicted for stealing “five fish” of the goods &c. Wild animals are not the subject of larceny, unless reclaimed, confined or dead, and are valuable for food or otherwise. State v. House, 65 N. C. 315.
Fish are the subject of larceny only under the same conditions as animals, and the bill of indictment is fatally defective in failing to allege any of those conditions and no amount of proof can supply the defect.
All the books agree that if fish are confined in a trunk or otherwise so that they may be taken at the pleasure of him who has thus appropriated them, then they are the subject of larceny. “Fish confined in a net or tank are sufficiently secured; but how, in a pond, is a question of doubt, which seems to admit of different answers, as the circumstances of particular cases differ.” 2 Bish. Cr. L. § 685; 1 Hale P. C. 511; Foster's Crown Law 366.
An English statute, 5 Geo. III. ch. 14, made it indictable to steal fish from a river, in any enclosed park. In a case under this statute, “where the defendant had taken fish in a river that ran through an enclosed park, but it appeared that no means had been taken to keep the fish within that part of the river that ran through the park, but that they could pass down or up the river, beyond the limits of the park at their pleasure; the Judges held that this was not a case within the statute.” Rex v. Corrodice, 2 Russel 1199. This is sufficient for our case; but it appears from the record that there are two defendants, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Levy
...that the admission of incompetent testimony (the wife against the husband), " etc. So it is as to other cases therein cited. In State v. Krider, 78 N. C. 481, the two defendants were examined before the grand jury, each against the other. On appeal to the Supreme Court the practice was cond......
-
State v. Coats
... ... of a single witness (who is incompetent) it should be ... quashed"; and this is quoted with approval in State ... v. Ivey, 100 N.C. 542, 5 S.E. 408: "Where the ... indictment is found upon the single testimony of an ... incompetent witness, it should be quashed." In State ... v. Krider, 78 N.C. 481, which is the only citation made ... by defendant's counsel, there was a quaere whether the ... bill was good when all the witnesses before the grand jury ... might be incompetent. Here there was competent evidence ... before the grand jury, and the petit jury by their verdict ... ...
-
State v. Coats
...542, 5 S. E. 408: "Where the indictment is found upon the single testimony of an incompetent witness, it should be quashed." In State v. Krider, 78 N. C. 481, which is the only citation made by defendant's counsel, there was a quaere whether the bill was good when all the witnesses before t......
-
State v. Frizell
...is permissible before the petit jury. We can do no more than recommend caution in its use. The defendant relies upon a dictum in State v. Krider, 78 N. C. 481, questioning this practice under the act of 1866. But that act has since been changed and modified in many particulars. Ashe, J., in......