State v. . MacE
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Indictment for perjury, tried at Fall Term, 1881, of Mitchell Superior. Court, before Seymour, J. Tho defendant was indicted for perjury, alleged to have been committed in the trial of an indictment for larceny, against one James Taylor and four others, had at fall term, 1872, of Mitchell superior court.
Read the full summary
Indictment for perjury, tried at Fall Term, 1881, of Mitchell Superior. Court, before Seymour, J. Tho defendant was indicted for perjury, alleged to have been committed in the trial of an indictment for larceny, against one James Taylor and four others, had at fall term, 1872, of Mitchell superior court. The solicitor of the district being absent at that term, the presiding judge appointed J. W. Bowman, Esq., to act as such pro tempore, who prepared the bill of indictment against the said Taylor and others, and signed the same in his own name as solicitor. The larceny charged upon Taylor and…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, J.
This court is of the opinion that no one of the defendant’s exceptions is well taken.
I. The signature of the prosecuting officer, while usually attached to the indictment, forms no part of it, and is in no manner essential to its validity. The indictment is not his work, but is the act of the grand jury declared in open court, and need not be signed by any one; and if it be, it is mere surplusage and cannot vitiate it. State v. Vincent, 1 Car. Law Rep., 493; State v. Cox, 6 Ired., 440.
II. The administration of an oath to a witness is an offL cial act of the court; and it being shown…
2Cited by9 opinions
- State v. Sultan.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- State v. . ArnoldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. MasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State v. SellersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Gillespie v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.