State v. . Lashley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for fornication and adultery tried at Fall 'Term, 1880, of Robeson Superior Court,before Avery, J. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty, the defendants, 'Thomas Lashley and Narei-ssa Monroe, moved in arrest o-f judgment on the ground- that it did not sufficiently appear from the bill that the defendants were- of different sexes.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for fornication and adultery tried at Fall 'Term, 1880, of Robeson Superior Court,before Avery, J. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty, the defendants, 'Thomas Lashley and Narei-ssa Monroe, moved in arrest o-f judgment on the ground- that it did not sufficiently appear from the bill that the defendants were- of different sexes. The solicitor for the state insisted, that although the defendants were not described as “male''’’ and “female,” yet the . averment that-they “did unlawfully and adulterously bed !and cohabit.together ” was-sufficient to negative the mar-iriage, and.…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, C. 3'.
In State v. Aldridge, 3 Dev., 331, the bill of indictment was held to be defective and the judgment was arrested for want of an averment that the parties were unmarried ; and delivering the opinion, Ruffin, J., says; “The charge then is one of a man and woman bedding and cohabiting together in his house Without an allegation that they had not intermarried, and without applying the epithet •adulierously or concluding that •thereby they Committed the crime of adultery.” To make the intercourse criminal under the statute, there should be, he adds, “an express negative affirmation…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. . GuestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- State v. . StubbsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Crane v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896
- State v. . BrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Tynes v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1908