State v. Purify
| Decision Date | 28 February 1882 |
| Citation | 86 N.C. 681 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHN PURIFY |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for a nuisance in obstructing a highway, tried at Fall Term, 1881, of CRAVEN Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.
Upon the special verdict found by the jury, His Honor held that the defendant was not guilty as charged in the bill of indictment, and the solicitor for the state appealed.
Attorney General, for the State .
No counsel for defendant.
It is impossible to doubt the correctness of the judgment of the court below.
The charge preferred against the defendant in the indictment is the obstruction of “a certain common and public highway leading from the dwelling house, &c., to the public road, &c.,” whereas the proof offered was, that he had obstructed “a certain private cart-way, leading from the dwelling house, &., to the public road,” &c.
Even if we should concede that an indictment would lie for obstructing a private cart way--which according to the authorities seems more than doubtful-- still it must be truly charged, and not, as in this instance, as a public highway.
A public highway is one established by public authority, and kept in order by the public, under the direction of the law; or else it is one used generally by the public for twenty years, and over which the public authorities have exerted control, and for the reparation of which they are responsible. State v. McDaniel, 8 Jones, 284; Boyden v. Achenbach, 79 N. C., 539.
A cart way is as distinct as possible. Indeed, it is a way established by law for a person who has not the benefit of a public highway, and for that reason alone. Bat. Rev., ch. 104, § 38.
Because of the variance between the allegations made in the indictment and the proof offered in support of them, the defendant was clearly entitled to an acquittal.
No error.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. Slick, 111PA83
...of demonstrating public maintenance. The first statement appears in a criminal action for obstructing a public road, State v. Purify, 86 N.C. 681, 682 (1882). There, the court stated the rule as A public highway is one established by public authority, and kept in order by the public, under ......
-
Hildebrand v. Southern Bell Tel-ephone & Tel. Co, 101.
...for passage; Parsons v. San Francisco, 23 Cal. 462; a roadmaintained at public expense and kept open to the travel of the public. State v. Purify, 86 N.C. 681; Kennedy v. Williams, 87 N.C. 6. A highway is a way open to the public at large for travel or transportation, without distinction, d......
-
Hildebrand v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...for passage; Parsons v. San Francisco, 23 Cal. 462; a road maintained at public expense and kept open to the travel of the public. State v. Purify, 86 N.C. 681; Kennedy v. Williams, 87 N.C. A highway is a way open to the public at large for travel or transportation, without distinction, dis......
-
State v. Lancaster, COA21-231
..."an auxiliary part of the public road system of the county although they are distinguished from public highways proper"); State v. Purify , 86 N.C. 681, 682 (1882) (defining a "public highway" as "one established by a public authority and kept in order by the public ...").II. Conclusion¶ 18......