State v. Sprouse
| Decision Date | 19 May 1909 |
| Citation | 64 S.E. 900,150 N. C. 860 |
| Parties | STATE. v. SPROUSE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Arson ($ 25*)—Indictment—Variance.
In an indictment charging accused with burning a building belonging to S., ownership is alleged only to identify the property, and the charge is sustained by showing that the building belonged to another, who had rented it to S., who was using it as a granary.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Arson, Cent. Dig. § 52; Dec. Dig. § 25.*] 2. Indictment and Information (§ 2032-*)— Aider by Verdict—Good and Bad Counts. Where the indictment contains two counts, and one is valid, a general verdict will be supported by such valid count, although the other count may be defective.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. § 651; Dec. Dig. § 203.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Madison County; Ferguson, Judge.
Lawrence Sprouse was convicted of arson, and appeals. Affirmed.
C. C. Ramsey and Moore & Rollins, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant is indicted in two counts. In the first count it is alleged that the defendant "did unlawfully, wantonly, willfully, and feloniously set fire to a stable and granary then and there the property and in possession of William Sexton, " and in the second count it is alleged that the defendant "did unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously attempt to burn the barn and stable of William Sexton by setting fire to a certain lot of flammable matter in said barn and stable, contrary to the statute, " etc.
The defendant requested his honor to charge the jury as follows: "That if the Jury believe the evidence the stable and granary was the property of E. L. Sprouse, and the jury could not find the defendant guilty under this bill of indictment, which charges that the defendant burned the stable and granary, the property of William Sexton." The court refused to give said instruction, and the defendant excepted. The evidence was that the title to the stable was in E. L. Sprouse, but that he had rented the building to William Sexton, who had stored 300 bushels of corn in the granary end of the building. This is not a civil action for possession. Ownership is alleged only to identify the property and is sufficiently proven by showing occupancy. State v. Daniel, 121 N. C. 576, 28 S. E. 255; State v. Thompson, 97 N. C. 496, 1 S. E. 921; State v. Jaynes, 78 N. C. 507; State v. Tailor, 88 N. C. 694.
The court charged the jury that if they "should be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that William Sexton, the prosecutor, had rented the premises from E. L. Sprouse, and in pursuance of the contract of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Calcutt
... ... Sprouse, 150 N.C. 860, ... 64 S.E. 900. Similarly, where defendants have been tried on ... indictments containing good and bad counts, general verdicts ... have been held to relate to and be supported by the good ... counts. State v. Smiley, 101 N.C. 709, 7 S.E. 904; ... State v. Toole, 106 N.C ... ...
-
State v. Mckeithan
...118 S. E. 6. The fact that these same parties own other houses in like capacity; is not ground for demurrer or quashal. State v. Sprousa, 150 N.C. 860, 64 S. E. 900; State v. Daniel, 121 N.C. 574, 28 S. E. 255; State v. McCarter, 98 N.C. 637, 4 S. E. 553. Sufficient matter appears on the fa......
-
State v. Banks
...offense. (Citation of authority.) His plea of former conviction would easily avail in case of a second prosecution.' In State v. Sprouse, 150 N.C. 860, 64 S.E. 900, 901, the indictment was in two counts. One charged the felonious burning of a stable and granary, 'than and there the property......
- State v. Sprouse