State v. Newby
| Decision Date | 31 January 1870 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. CHARLES NEWBY. |
A special verdict in an indictment for Malicious mischief, which omits to find that the act was done with malice towards the owner of the property injured, is equivalent to an acquittal.
( State v. Jackson, 12 Ire., 329, State v. Latham, 13 Ire., 33, cited and approved.)
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF, tried before Pool, J., at Spring Term 1869, of PERQUIMANS Court.
A special verdict found that the ox in question, was killed by the defendant in December 1866, in a field belonging to the defendant, within which no crop was growing; that the cattle of the plaintiff were frequently in such field, and plaintiff had been previously notified by the defendant of that fact; that the fence was not a lawful one; that the defendant fired upon the ox from the door of his own house, and as soon as he saw it; and that after killing it he sent word to its owner, the prosecutor.
In regard to the point of malice, the solicitor submitted to the Court that, as the killing was in the winter, when there was no crop upon the ground, the law implied malice.
His Honor, however, directed a verdict of Not guilty to be entered, and the Solicitor appealed.
Attorney-general, for the State .
Absence of a reasonable influential and apparent motive at the time, implies malice. The principle governing cases of homicide without legal justification, seems applicable. See State v. Landreth, 2nd Law Repos. 446; State v. Robinson, 3 D. & B., 130.
F. H. Busbee, contra.
The ruling below is correct. 4 Bl. Com. 343; State v. Robinson, 3 D & B., 130; Wheaton's Cr. Law, § 2011; State v. Latham, 13 Ire. 33; Kirkpatrick v. The People, 5 Denio, 277; State v. Jackson, 12 Ire., 329.
In the spoliation or destruction of property, malice towards the owner, must be the inducement, in order to constitute the crime of malicious mischief at common law.
This was not controverted by the Attorney-general, but he insisted that the fact of killing the ox being found, malice must be inferred, just as in homicide. The difference is that homicide is a crime per se, and excuse or justification must come from the defence, or appear in the cause; but to kill an ox is not so; and therefore malice toward the owner must be found. It was not found in this case, and therefore the defendant was entitled to an acquittal. State v. Jackson, 12 Ire., 329; State v. Latham, 13 Ire., 33.
There is no error. Let this be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Churchill
...injured must be averred and found. It will not be inferred from a merely injurious act, such as killing the animal of another. (State v. Newby, 64 N.C. 23.) J. Guheen, Attorney General, and B. S. Crow, for Respondent. The construction to be placed on "malicious," as used in our statutes, is......
-
Wiggin v. State
... ... State, 44 Ala. 380; Chappell ... v. State, 35 Ark. 345; People v. Jones, 241 ... Ill. 482, 89 N.E. 752, 16 Ann. Cas. 332; State v ... Leslie, 138 Iowa 104, 115 N.W. 897. U.S. v ... Gideon, 1 Minn. 292; State v. Beekman, 27 ... N.J.L. 124, 72 A. D. 352; State v. Newby, 64 N.C ... 23; State v. Miner, 17 N.D. 457; 117 N.W. 528, 19 L ... R. A. N. S. 273; Com. v. Shaffer, 32 Pa.Super. 375; ... State v. Wilcox, 11 Tenn. 277, 3 Yerg. 278 (Tenn.), ... 24 Am. Dec. 569; Newton v. State, 3 Tex. Ct. App ... 245; State v. Muzzy, 87 Vt. 267, 88 A. 895; ... ...
-
State v. Leslie
...owner must be actual or express, and will not be inferred from the act itself. State v. Robinson, 20 N.C. 129 (32 Am. Dec. 661); State v. Newby, 64 N.C. 23. On the contrary, think that in this as in most other cases where the mental and moral attitude of the accused at the time of the alleg......
-
State v. Lightfoot
...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 State v. Gould, 40 Iowa 372, is not in conflict with this conclusion. The indictment in that case was framed under section ......