State v. Patrick
| Decision Date | 30 June 1878 |
| Citation | 79 N.C. 655,28 Am.Rep. 340 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ISAAC PATRICK. |
INDICTMENT for Larceny tried at Fall Term, 1877, of LENOIR Superior Court, before Eure, J.
The defendant was found guilty and judgment pronounced, from which he appealed. And in this Court the defendant's counsel insisted that the bill of indictment was defective in the particular set forth in the opinion.
Attorney General, for the State .
Messrs G. M. Smedes and Battle & Mordecai, for the defendant , relied on State v. Morey, 2 Wis. 362.
The objection in this case is to the sufficiency of the description of the property in the bill of indictment, to wit, “one pound of meat of the value of five cents.” We find no direct authority in our Reports nor in the text books. In State v. Morey, 2 Wis. 362, the same question was presented, and the Court held that “in an indictment for larceny, the property which is alleged to have been stolen should be described with reasonable certainty; and a charge of stealing meat which applies not only to the flesh of all animals, used for food, but in a general sense, to all kinds of provisions, is too vague and uncertain.” In this conclusion we concur. Such articles have more specific names in commerce and in the country, which ought to be employed in criminal proceedings.
We cite the following cases merely as a reference to the several phases in which the question of description of stolen property has been considered: State v. Brown, 1 Dev. 137; State v. Godet, 7 Ire. 210; State v. Clark, 8 Ire. 226; State v. Horan, Phil. 571; State v. Campbell, 76 N. C. 261; State v. Krider, 78 N. C. 481.
In State v. Jenkins, 78 N. C. 478, the word meat is used in the syllabus and report of the case. It should have been bacon, as appears from the original papers on file, and we refer to it to avoid misconception, the point there decided being different from the one in our case. Let this be certified to the end that judgment be arrested.
Error.
Judgment arrested.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nugent
...and where possible to state the number or quantity, kind, quality, distinguishing features, etc., thereof.' The case of State v. Patrick, 79 N.C. 655, 28 Am.Rep. 340, is directly in point. In that case the description of the property in the bill of indictment, to wit, 'one pound of meat of ......
-
State v. Collett
...flesh of animals used for food, but in a general sense to all kinds of provisions. The supreme court of North Carolina in State v. Patrick, 79 N.C. 655, 28 Am. Rep. 340, quotes with approval the Wisconsin case. This case the theft of one pound of meat, valued at five cents. Mr. Justice Fair......
-
State v. Ingram, 173
...described by the name by which it is generally known.' The defendant contended that the indictment was defective in the case of State v. Patrick, 79 N.C. 655, because the property alleged to have been stolen in the bill of indictment was insufficiently described. The bill of indictment desc......
-
The State v. McGuire
... ... thing," and thereby enable the court to see that the ... property was such as in law is the subject of larceny, and ... the defendant to know what it was he is charged with ... attempting to steal. 2 Bish. New Crim. Proc., sec. 702; ... State v. Dawes, 75 Me. 51; State v ... Patrick, 79 N.C. 655; State v. Morey, 2 Wis ... 494. (c) It fails to allege that the goods, wares and ... merchandise or other valuable things were "then and ... there" kept or deposited in the chicken-house. Reg ... v. Clarke, 1 Car. & K. 421; 2 Arch., p. 329; State ... v. Hardwick, 2 Mo. 226; Jane ... ...