State v. . Hines
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Indictment, for larceny tried at Fall Term, 1880, of Wilson Superior Court, before Gudger. J. Upon calling this case for trial, the defendant moved to quash the indictment for the reasons following: On the back of the bill under the word “ witnesses” the names of two persons were written, one of whom wasR.
Read the full summary
Indictment, for larceny tried at Fall Term, 1880, of Wilson Superior Court, before Gudger. J. Upon calling this case for trial, the defendant moved to quash the indictment for the reasons following: On the back of the bill under the word “ witnesses” the names of two persons were written, one of whom wasR. A. Johnston ; and immediately below these names the following certificate was endorsed, to-wit: “ Those marked + sworn by the foreman and examined before the grand jury:” “ A true bill.” This certificate was signed officially by the foreman of the grand jury, but neither of the names of the…
1Opinion of the CourtAshe, J.
Before the act of 1879, if an indictment was found without evidence or upon illegal evidence, as upon the testimony of witnesses not sworn, upon proof of the fact the bill might be quashed or the matter might have been pleaded in abatement, but could not have been taken advantage of by motion in arrest of judgment; for the endorsements on the bill have been held to be no part of the record. But the omission to designate the witnesess who may have been sworn, by a + mark, was not sufficient to quash the bill. The fact that they were not sworn must have been established by proof offered by the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- State v. HouseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. Sultan.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- State v. . MitchemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- State v. . AvantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- State v. . FrizellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.