State v. . Negro Lewis
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Pitt. At September teem, 1821, of Pitt Superior Court, two bills of indictment against the, ¡ risoucr wore, found by the Grand Jury — the. one for burg!ary and larceny, the, other for a robbery. The larceny in the one. bill, and the robbery in the other, vero for the same goods and ehíkíels» and there war; but ono taking.
Read the full summary
From Pitt. At September teem, 1821, of Pitt Superior Court, two bills of indictment against the, ¡ risoucr wore, found by the Grand Jury — the. one for burg!ary and larceny, the, other for a robbery. The larceny in the one. bill, and the robbery in the other, vero for the same goods and ehíkíels» and there war; but ono taking. Ai; the same iviot f.-riíSy of ího kuivv'ü'7 ; or; this oouvirtion, the At-iorsiev-iVnorri did tiol prav a.«’ juclgmeik, nor wtss a»y •y o arrnriA j si ml, at the Cree o" the prínme.As arraign-inení,, jf-i usotl'm was íjsyío by hr* ccjüü.á'Í that the prose ouüs'jv oidor…
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Judge.
It i» r<íI:H¡íteá, in this case, that. both !.ndii'ki’“nir’, are, for the same felonious h/hinp; of Vn<; mme [puds. Alie Fiefei’iilaiii is found guilty of a grand larceny. on that indioi.moni which ciiat-eyo a burglary and dcsitiuc;. ■*
The other indiotraeni is for a robbery j a robbery i» a larceuy. hut of a atore agrrjnsvried kind. The first i» a simple larceny. The other f; a com pound or mixed b¡r-ceny, because it includes in it the r,;>;yrs>vati<m of a felonious faking front 11; r p-rsj.;.
Now. suppose 1 iso IVfendatit should be tried, aud found gully on the second hidictineaf…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. BirckheadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- State v. . MidgettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- State v. WheelockSupreme Court of Iowa · 1933
- State v. PriceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Lamore v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.