Legal Opinion

State v. . Hatch

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1895PublishedCited by 20 opinions

INDICTMENT against W. H. Hatch and others, County Commissioners, for wilful neglect of official duty. Erom a judgment for the State the defendants appealed. The facts appear in the opinion of Associate Justice ClaeK.

1Opinion of the Court

ClaeK, J. :

The corner-stone of our system of government is that it is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” It follows, that any public officer is a public servant, responsible to the sovereign, the people. The responsibility attaches for acts of omission, as well as commission. For such malfeasances, the trial for some officials is by impeachment, for those of lesser degree by indictment and trial by jury. Section 1090 of The Gode creates two distinct offences : One is the wilful omission, neglect or refusal to discharge any of the duties of his office. ’ This is a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. . PritchardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  2. State v. . HawkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. . OstwaltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  2. State v. . AndersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  3. State v. . DeytonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  4. W. M. Sanders v. John Earp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  5. State v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API