State v. Pickens
| Decision Date | 30 June 1878 |
| Citation | 79 N.C. 652 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. J. C. PICKENS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for a Misdemeanor tried at Spring Term, 1878, of BUNCOMBE Superior Court, before Cloud, J.
The defendant was indicted in the following words: The jurors &c. present that J. C. Pickens &c. executed to one G. A. Crooker a chattel mortgage (conveying certain personal property) to secure the payment of a note &c., and after the execution of the same, and while it was in force, said Pickens did sell and dispose of a part of the property (naming it) embraced in said mortgage, without the consent and against the will of said Crooker, with intent to hinder, delay and defeat the rights of said Crooker under said mortgage, against the form of the statute &c. The jury found the defendant guilty, and on motion the Court arrested judgment, and Gudger, Solicitor for the State, appealed.
Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. J. H. Merrimon, for the defendant .
The act of 1873, '74, ch. 31, makes it a misdemeanor to “make any disposition” of any personal property embraced in a chattel mortgage then in force with intent &c. The bill in this case alleges that defendant did “sell and dispose of” such property with intent &c, without alleging to whom he sold it or in what manner he disposed of it, and on this ground he moves in arrest of judgment. The objection is fatal to the action. The statute is in very broad terms and probably goes beyond the meaning of the legislature, and it is proper in a criminal proceeding under such a statute that the bill of indictment should point with reasonable certainty to the alleged offence. The purpose of such particularity is to identify the particular fact or transaction on which the indictment is founded so that the accused may have the benefit of an acquittal or conviction if accused a second time. State v. Angel, 7 Ire. 27. It will be noticed that the word “sell” is not employed in the statute and may be put out of the question, except so far as it might be one of the modes of disposing of the property as is here alleged. If however that be the particular offence intended to be prosecuted, it is necessary to allege to whom the property was sold for the reasons above stated. It has been ruled that a prosecution for selling spiritous liquors unlawfully must set forth the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold, also the name of the slave to whom liquor was sold, or with whom a white man played cards. State v. Stamey, 71 N. C. 202, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bissette
...145 N.C. 422, 58 S.E. 998; State v. Dowdy, 145 N.C. 432, 58 S.E. 1002; State v. Miller, 93 N.C. 511; State v. Trice, 88 N.C. 627; State v. Pickens, 79 N.C. 652; State v. Stamey, 71 N.C. 202; State v. Faucett, 20 N.C. 239; State v. Blythe, 18 N.C. King v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 453, 286 S.W.2d......
-
State v. Jones
...the particular fact or transaction on which the indictment is founded.” State v. Stamey, 71 N.C. 202, 203 (1874); see also State v. Pickens, 79 N.C. 652 (1878); State v. Blythe, 18 N.C. (1 Dev. & Bat. Eq.) 199 (1835). Bissette extended that rule to the unlawful sale of agricultural seeds. 2......
-
State v. Holmes
...intent. Formerly it was necessary to allege in the indictment the name of the person to whom the mortgaged property was sold (State v. Pickens, 79 N. C. 652; State v. Burns, 80 N. C. 376), but this is expressly made unnecessary under the amended statute as it is in the Code. No ...
-
State v. Helms, 74
...allege the facts and circumstances so as to identify the transaction and point with reasonable certainty to the offense charged. State v. Pickens, 79 N.C. 652; State v. Woods, 104 N.C. 898, 10 S.E. In State v. Farmer, 104 N.C. 887, 10 S.E. 563, 564, which bears close resemblance to the pres......