State v. . Allen
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an indictment under the Act of 1868-69, chap. 253, (Battle’s Revisal, chap. 32, sec. 95,) in the following words, “That Henderson Allen, on &c., at &c., g, certain mule of the value of one hundred dollars, the property of one John S. Ellis, the said mule being then and there within an inclosure not surrounded by a lawful fence, unlawfully and wilfully did abuse, injure and kill contrary,” &c.
Read the full summary
This was an indictment under the Act of 1868-69, chap. 253, (Battle’s Revisal, chap. 32, sec. 95,) in the following words, “That Henderson Allen, on &c., at &c., g, certain mule of the value of one hundred dollars, the property of one John S. Ellis, the said mule being then and there within an inclosure not surrounded by a lawful fence, unlawfully and wilfully did abuse, injure and kill contrary,” &c. Upon the trial at the Fall Term, 1872, of the Superior Court of Granville county, before his Honor, Watts, J., the Court, among other things, instructed the jury that it was a violation of the…
1Opinion of the CourtReade, J.
1. The defendant moved for a new trial for “ misdirection,” without stating in what the misdirection consisted. The case states that his Honor, “ among other things, charged the jury that it was a violation of the statute referred to in the indictment for a person wilfully to abuse, injure and kill a mule the property of another in any inclosure whatever, not surrounded by a lawful fence.”
This charge seems to be in the terms of the statute substantially, and we regret that the defendant is not represented by counsel in this Court to suggest any error which may have escaped our attention.
2.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. . ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
- State v. . PainterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
- State v. PainterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874