State v. . Merritt
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for a misdemeanor tried at Spring Term, 1883, of Harnett Superior Court, before MaeRae, J. The defendant is charged with the violation of the act of 1876-77, eh. 283, §6, in removing crops.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for a misdemeanor tried at Spring Term, 1883, of Harnett Superior Court, before MaeRae, J. The defendant is charged with the violation of the act of 1876-77, eh. 283, §6, in removing crops. The jury found a verdict of guilty, and thereupon the defendant- moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the indictment charged that the corn and fodder alleged to have been removed was removed “ without satisfying cell liens on said crop”; whereas the statute provides, in respect to such removal, * * * and “before satisfying all liens held by the lessor or his assigns on said crop.”'…
1Opinion of the CourtMerrimon, J.
We think the court properly arrested the judgment. An essential part of the offence intended to be charged in the indictment is the removal of the crop, or any part thereof, from the land “ before satisfying all liens held by the lessor or his assigns on said crop;” not necessarily all, liens that may be on it. The indictment does not contain the words of the statute, or the substance of them. The words substituted for them are “without satisfying all liens on said crop.” These words do not charge the offence. Non constat, that the lessor or his assigns had any lien at all on the crop. It…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. . LilesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
- State v. . ThorneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. . JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- State v. . BallangeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- State v. . EdwardsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- State v. . RoseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- State v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.