State v. Vaughan
| Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
| Citation | 91 N.C. 532 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM VAUGHAN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL ACTION, tried on appeal, at Fall Term, 1884, of GREENE Superior Court, before Avery, J.
The defendant appealed from the judgment rendered against him by the justice of the peace, to the superior court.
The warrant upon which the defendant was tried in the court of the justice of the peace, was as follows: To any lawful officer, etc.: Whereas, Taylor Barrow, overseer of the public road from Fort Run to Wayne county line, has complained on oath to me, one of the acting justices of the peace in and for said county, that he appointed the 8th day of August, 1884, to work said road, and that he gave William Vaughan, one of the hands liable to work on said road, lawful notice to attend and work said road, and that he failed and refused to do so: These are, therefore, to command you to arrest said William Vaughan, and him have before me at Shine, in said county, on the 27th day of August, 1884, at 10 o'clock A. M., then and there to answer said complaint, and be otherwise dealt with according to law.” Given under my hand and seal this 27th day of August, 1884.
+--------------------------------------+
¦(Signed)¦JOHN W. TAYLOR, J. P.¦[Seal.]¦
+--------------------------------------+
When the case was called in the superior court for trial, the defendant moved to quash the warrant, and the solicitor moved to amend the charging part of the warrant as follows, to wit: “That William Vaughan, late of Bull-head township, in the county of Greene aforesaid, on the 8th day of August, 1884, and for ten days and more, before the said William Vaughan had been duly summoned as a hand to work on said public road, situate in said township, in said Greene county, and was then and during all said time between eighteen and forty-five years of age, and liable to work on said public road, and that three days and more before the day first aforesaid, the said William Vaughan had been duly and lawfully summoned to work on said public road, on the said first named day, and that the said William Vaughan being then and there liable as aforesaid, and having been so summoned as aforesaid, did on the day and year aforesaid, in said township, in the county aforesaid, wilfully and unlawfully fail and omit to attend and work on said public road, as he was so summoned to do as aforesaid, he, the said William Vaughan, not having paid to said overseer one dollar to be relieved from so working on said public road, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state.”
The court refused the motion to amend, on the ground that section 908 of THE CODE did not give the court power to grant the amendment asked, but allowed the motion to quash.
From the refusal of the court to allow the amendment, and the order of the court that the warrant be quashed, the solicitor appealed.
Attorney-General, for the State .
No counsel for the defendant.
The only question presented for our consideration is, did the court have the power to allow the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Lindsey
...12. State v. Pool, 106 N.C. 698, 10 S.E. 1033. State v. Smith, 103 N.C. 410, 9 S.E. 200; State v. Smith, 98 N.C. 747, 4 S.E. 517; State v. Vaughan, 91 N.C. 532. The complaint or accusation in the warrant was held to be but a defective statement, being to general, but the nature of the crime......
-
Alexander v. Lindsey
... ... '(s) Grayson H. Lindsey ... 'E ... E. White, J. P ... 'State ... of North Carolina---Buncombe County ... 'To ... Any Constable or other lawful Officer of Buncombe ... County---Greetings: ... Pool, 106 N.C. 698, 10 S.E. 1033. State v ... Smith, 103 N.C. 410, 9 S.E. 200; State v ... Smith, 98 N.C. 747, 4 S.E. 517; State v ... Vaughan, 91 N.C. 532. The complaint or accusation in the ... warrant was held to be but a defective statement, being to ... general, but the nature of the ... ...
-
State v. Moore
...v. Doggett, 231 N.C. 629, 58 S.E.2d 609, 613. See also the same effect State v. Cauble, 70 N.C. 62; State v. Crook, 91 N.C. 536; State v. Vaughan, 91 N.C. 532; State v. Yellowday, 152 N.C. 793, 67 S.E. 480; State v. Johnson, 188 N.C. 591, 125 S.E. 183; State v. Wilson, 221 N. C. 365, 20 S.E......
-
State v. Mills
...offense charged in the lower court, and insert an entirely new and different one. State v. Taylor, 118 N.C. 1262, 24 S.E. 526; State v. Vaughan, 91 N.C. 532; State v. Crook, 91 N.C. 536. The reason for change in the statute extending the power of amendment so as to embrace both civil and cr......