State v. . Burns
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for a Misdemeanor tried at January Term, 1879-, of Wake Criminal Court, before Strong, J. AtNovember term, 1877, the defendant was indicted for the violation of the act of 1873-’74, ch. 31, in that he sold one bale of cotton upon which he had given a chattel mortgage to secure certain rent due the prosecutor.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for a Misdemeanor tried at January Term, 1879-, of Wake Criminal Court, before Strong, J. AtNovember term, 1877, the defendant was indicted for the violation of the act of 1873-’74, ch. 31, in that he sold one bale of cotton upon which he had given a chattel mortgage to secure certain rent due the prosecutor. The principle on which this case was decided is the same as in State v. Pickens» 79 N. 0., 652. There was no motion in the court below t© arrest the judgment from which defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtAshe, J.
There were some exceptions taken by the defendant on the trial below, but it is only necessary to notice that taken to the form of the indictment.
The bill of indictment does not charge that the lien was in force when the bale of cotton was disposed o£ nor to whom it was sold. For- these reasons' the bill is fatally defective, and the judgment below must be arrested. State v. Pickens, 79 N. C., 652.
There is error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Wake county that the defendant may be discharged.
Pek Curai-mx Errors
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. . PickensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. . Van DoranSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- State v. HelmsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- State v. . FarmerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- State v. . HolmesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- State v. . Van DoranSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891