State v. Mace
| Decision Date | 28 February 1882 |
| Citation | 86 N.C. 668 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ELISHA MACE. |
INDICTMENT for perjury, tried at Fall Term, 1881, of MITCHELL Superior Court, before Seymour, J.
The defendant was indicted for perjury, alleged to have been committed in the trial of an indictment for larceny, against one James Taylor and four others, had at fall term, 1872, of Mitchell superior court.
The solicitor of the district being absent at that term, the presiding judge appointed J. W. Bowman, Esq., to act as such pro tempore, who prepared the bill of indictment against the said Taylor and others, and signed the same in his own name as solicitor.
The larceny charged upon Taylor and his co-defendants, was the taking of some pigs, the property of one Wiseman; and the evidence offered on the trial went to show that two of the stolen pigs had been found in the possession of the present defendant, and being examined in regard thereto, he testified that he had received them from the said Taylor; and the perjury was alleged to have consisted in the falsity of that statement.
On the trial of the defendant, at fall term, 1881, two witnesses testified that he was sworn in the usual way upon the Bible, but no one could remember that he repeated the words, “so help me, God,” before kissing the book.
For the defence three exceptions were taken:
1. That the original indictment against Taylor and others being signed by Mr. Bowman instead of the regular solicitor was not sufficient to constitute the case as one in court.
2. That inasmuch as no witness testified that he repeated the words “so help me God,” as prescribed in the statute, it did not appear that he had taken an oath, the violation of which was in law perjury.
3. That since the other evidence, introduced in the trial of the indictment against Taylor and others, showed that others of the stolen pigs had been found in the actual possession of Taylor, it was not material to show that those found in the defendant's possession had been received from him, and therefore the defendant's testimony, alleged to be false, was given with reference to an immaterial matter and could not support the charge of perjury against him.
The exceptions were overruled. Verdict of guilty, judgment, appeal by defendant.
Attorney General, for the State .
No counsel for defendant.
This court is of the opinion that no one of the defendant's exceptions is well taken.
I. The signature of the prosecuting officer,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sellers, 254
...Doughtie, 238 N.C. 228, 77 S.E.2d 642; State v. Shemwell, 180 N.C. 718, 104 S.E. 885; State v. Arnold, 107 N.C. 861, 11 S.E. 990; State v. Mace, 86 N.C. 668; State v. Vincent, 4 N.C. This is said in 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 56: 'In the absence of statute it is generally held......
-
State v. Mason
...of the indictment that it should be signed by the prosecuting officer.' State v. Sellers, 273 N.C. 641, 651, 161 S.E.2d 15, 22; State v. Mace, 86 N.C. 668. The indictment upon which the defendant was tried does not allege the ownership of the property alleged to have been taken, stolen and ......
-
State v. Mcbroom
...publicly returning the bill into the court as true, and the recording or filing it among the records, that make it effectual." In State v. Mace, 86 N. C. 668, Ruffin, J., say. the indictment "is the act of the grand jury declared in open court, and need not be signed by any one, and, if it ......
-
Weadock v. State
...for which the appellant contends are necessary. They are as follows: Atwood v. State, 146 Miss. 662, 111 So. 865, 51 A. L. R. 836; State v. Mace, 86 N. C. 668; State v. Day, 108 Minn. 121, 121 N. W. 611; State v. Rupp, 96 Kan. 446, 151 P. 1111, L. R. A. 1916B, 848; State v. Madigan, 57 Minn......