Tate v. . Clegg
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDeviN, J.
Since the warrant charged the commission of a felony under the statute (C. S., 4214), the defendant could not be put to answer but by indictment. Constitution, Art. I, see. 12; S. v. Hyman, 164 N. C., 411, 79 S. E., 284; S. v. Rawls, 203 N. C., 436, 166 S. E., 332. A similar question to the one raised by this appeal was recently considered by this Court in S. v. Sanderson, 213 N. C., 381, 196 S. E., 324. In that case the warrant issued by the county court, charging the defendant with “operating a whiskey still,” was there amended to read “this being a second offense for manufacturing…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- State v. HymanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- State v. . CrookSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- State v. . GoffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- State v. . MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- State v. . PoythressSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- State v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- State v. CookeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- State v. CofieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.