State v. . Harris
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Larceny, tried before.Toargee, ./., at Fall Term 1869, of Chatham Court. The indictment described the article taken, as u Fifty pounds of flour, of the value of sixpence.” A special verdict was-found : viz: 1. That the defendant had stolen, &c., “ one sack of flour the property of,” &c. 2. That there was no evidence of its weight. 3. That the only evidence of its value, was an allegation of defendant given in evidence, that he paid $5 50 for it.
Read the full summary
Larceny, tried before.Toargee, ./., at Fall Term 1869, of Chatham Court. The indictment described the article taken, as u Fifty pounds of flour, of the value of sixpence.” A special verdict was-found : viz: 1. That the defendant had stolen, &c., “ one sack of flour the property of,” &c. 2. That there was no evidence of its weight. 3. That the only evidence of its value, was an allegation of defendant given in evidence, that he paid $5 50 for it. Thereupon, His Honor ordered a verdict of Not G-uilty to he entered, and gave Judgment accordingly ; and the Solicitor for the State appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtReade, J.
The object of describing property stolen by its quality and quantity, is that it may appear to the Court to be of value. Tbe object of describing it by its usual name, ownership, &o., is to enable tbe defendant to make bis defence, and to protect himself against a second conviction.
In the case under consideration, tbe substance of tbe charge, is, steabng flour — fifty pounds of flour — from which it is apparent that it was of value; and the exact quantity and value need not be proved. The objection made, is, that it was a u sac 7c of flour;” by which we understand flour in a sack or bag. If…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. IngramSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. . NipperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- State v. HaiglerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. . CaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919