State v. . Cockerham
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an appeal from an order of his Honor Judge Bailey, made at the Spring Term, 1842, of Hay wood Supe - rior Court of Law.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of his Honor Judge Bailey, made at the Spring Term, 1842, of Hay wood Supe - rior Court of Law. It appeared that at the Fall Term, 1841, of Haywood Superior Court, which was on the first Monday after the fourth Monday of September, the defendant was convicted of an assault on one Thomas J. Cooper, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for two calendar months “from and after the first day of November next;” that the defendant entered into recognizance to appear and go to prison at the time specified, but that although he did not attempt to escape, yet in fact he…
1Opinion of the CourtGaston, J.
The time, at which a sentence shall be carried into execution, forms no part of the judgment of the court. The judgment is the penalty of the law, as declared by the court, while the direction, with respect to the time of carryiug it into eifect, is in the nature of an award of execution. In this case the judgment was that the defendant be imprisoned two calendar months; and the words, which follow in the record, “ from and after the 1st of November next,” direct the time of executing the judgment. The entry, indeed, would have been more formal, had the judgment and the mandate for carrying…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Ex Parte RidleyCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
- State v. AbbottSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911
- Ex Parte EldridgeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
- Miller v. EvansSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- People Ex Rel. Kerner v. McKinleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1939
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.