State v. . Tomlinson
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from fhe' Superior Court of Law of Iredell County, at Fall Term, 1842, his Honor Judge Nash presiding. The defendant was indicted for trading with a slave, and in his defence, relied upon the act prescribing the time within which such indictments should be commenced. From the evidence it appeared, that morq than one year had elapsed after the trading had tafeen place, before the filing of this bill of indictment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from fhe' Superior Court of Law of Iredell County, at Fall Term, 1842, his Honor Judge Nash presiding. The defendant was indicted for trading with a slave, and in his defence, relied upon the act prescribing the time within which such indictments should be commenced. From the evidence it appeared, that morq than one year had elapsed after the trading had tafeen place, before the filing of this bill of indictment. Tó answer this objection, it was shewn that, within one year from the commission of the offence, another bill of indictment had been filed against the defendant for the same…
1Opinion of the CourtDaniel, J.
The defendant was indicted and tried for trading with a slave, an offence embraced in ch. 34, sec. 75, Rev. Stat. More than one year had elapsed between the time of the trading with the slave, and the finding of this bill of indictment. In sec. SO, Rev. Slat. ch. 34, it is enacted, “ that no suit or indictment shall be prosecuted for any violation of the seventy-fifth and seventy-ninth sections of this act, unless such suit or indictment be commenced within twelve months after such violation.” . The'defendant, on the trial, insisted that the indictment was barred by the said act of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- State v. . MaslinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- State v. . HeddenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952