State v. . Tally
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for Fornication and Adultery, tried before his Honor, Judge 'Watts, at Fall Term, 1815, of tbe Superior ■Court of G-eanville county. The defendant was held to answer upon the following bill of indictment: “The jurors for the State upon their oath present, that Chas.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for Fornication and Adultery, tried before his Honor, Judge 'Watts, at Fall Term, 1815, of tbe Superior ■Court of G-eanville county. The defendant was held to answer upon the following bill of indictment: “The jurors for the State upon their oath present, that Chas. Tally, yeoman, and Winney Bass, spinster, both late of the county of Granville, being lewd and vicious pei-sons, and not united together in marriage, on the 28th day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, and on divers other days and times, both before and after that day, at and in the county aforesaid,…
1Opinion of the CourtSettle, J.
The defendant insists that the indictment is in • sufficient:
1. “ For that it does not contain the material words of the statute, against fornication and adultery.”
2. “ There are no words used in the indictment, sufficient to charge every ingredient of the offence as defined by statute.”
As a general rule it is safe, in pleading, to follow the words of a statute, but this is not necessary, nor indeed always proper.
This bill charges that Charles Tally, yeoman, and "Winney Bass, spinster, both late of &c., being lewd and vicious persons, and not united together in marriage, on the 28th day of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. . GuestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- People ex rel. Sheldon v. CurtinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- State v. . BrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909