Legal Opinion

State v. . Flowers

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1891PublishedCited by 16 opinions

CRIMINAL action, heard atSeptember Term, 1891, of Wake Superior Court, Whitaker, J., presiding, upon motion to quash, which was allowed, and the State appealed. The indictment charged the perjury was committed “upon the trial of an action in the court of Robert Sanders and W.R. Creech, Justices of the Peace, in and for the said county> acting and sitting together.”

1Opinion of the Court

Clark, J.:

The indictment is drawn under chapter 83, Acts 1889, which provides a simple form of indictment for perjury. A motion to quash below was allowed, which action defendant’s counsel seeks to sustain on the ground that the indictment charges the perjury to have been committed upon the trial of an action “in the court of Robert Sanders and W. R. Creech, Justices of the Peace, in and for said county, acting and sitting together,” etc. We fail to see the force of the objection. If the names of the Justices had been left out, the charge of the commission of the perjury “in a court of a…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. . PetersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  2. State v. . GatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  3. State v. . EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
  4. State v. . SwepsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
  5. State v. . ReidSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1835

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. GreerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. State v. . KnottsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  3. State v. JamesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  4. State v. Burnett.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  5. State v. RussellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API