State v. . Putney
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Larceny, tried at Fall Term 1867 of the Superior Court of Wake, before Fowle J. The indictment had been found at a Court of Ojer and Terminer held in December, 1866. The defendant having been convicted at Fall Term 1867, moved in arrest of judgment, and the motion having been granted, the Attorney General appealed.
Read the full summary
Larceny, tried at Fall Term 1867 of the Superior Court of Wake, before Fowle J. The indictment had been found at a Court of Ojer and Terminer held in December, 1866. The defendant having been convicted at Fall Term 1867, moved in arrest of judgment, and the motion having been granted, the Attorney General appealed. There is no express repealing clause, and the court will not imply a repeal from what appears upon the face of the Act of 1866-7. Pegram’s Case, 1 Leigh, 623; Myatt’s Case, 6 Rand. 694; 2 Strob. 17; Queen v. Pugh and al, 1 Mod. 107; S. v. Aiken, 39 N. H. 179; S. v. Taylor, 2…
1Opinion of the CourtReads, J.
At the time when the offence was committed, larceny was punishable with whipping, imprisonment and fine; one or all, — State v. Kearzey, ante 481. Our Statute of 1866 ’7, chap. 82, (February 25, 1867,) punishes larceny of a mule, &c., with death. And now it is insisted that this defendant cannot be punished at all; not under the statute of 1866-’7, because the offence was committed prior thereto; and not under the old law, because it is repealed by the new.
It is true that the defendant cannot be punished under a law wffiich was not in existence at the time when the offence was committed,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. PardonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. Perkins.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- State v. . BroadwaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Cisson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.