State v. Holder
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for Larceny, tried at Spring Term, 1879, of Davidson Superior Court, before Schenck, J. The bill of indictment charged the defendant Stephen Holder alias Stephen Phillips, with stealing “ one dog of the value of one dollar,” the property of oneT. T. Spaugh. The defendant’s counsel moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it did not charge an indictable offence. The motion was allowed, and Dobson, solicitor for the state, appealed.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for Larceny, tried at Spring Term, 1879, of Davidson Superior Court, before Schenck, J. The bill of indictment charged the defendant Stephen Holder alias Stephen Phillips, with stealing “ one dog of the value of one dollar,” the property of oneT. T. Spaugh. The defendant’s counsel moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it did not charge an indictable offence. The motion was allowed, and Dobson, solicitor for the state, appealed. (See State v. House, 65 N C., 815; Latham, 13 Ire., 33.)
1Opinion of the CourtAshe, J.
The defendant was indicted for stealing a dog. It is no offence at common law. 4 Bl. Com., 236; Arch. Cr. Pl., 175; 1 Hale P. C., 512. The common law is the law of this state, except where altered by statute; and we have no statute making it larceny to steal a dog ; therefore, the indictment cannot be sustained.
There is no error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Davidson county.
No error. Affirmed.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Mullaly v. . People of the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Mowery v. Town of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Commonwealth v. FlynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.