State v. Bryson.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Bryson.

37 S.E. 492, 127 N.C. 574, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 133

DecidedDecember 22, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 37 S.E. 492 (State v. Bryson.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bryson., 37 S.E. 492, 127 N.C. 574, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 133 (N.C. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Eueches, J.

The defendants are indicted for an assault on one Glenn Vest, and upon the case coming on for trial they moved to quash for duplicity in the bill of indictment. The motion was allowed, the bill of indictment quashed, and the State appealed. This bill should not be used as a precedent, as it is certainly liable to be criticised for its multiplicity, though it may not be necessary to quash it for “du *576 plicity.” There is much more of it than is necessary, by which we suppose the Solicitor intended to intensify the charge of an aggravated assault. But finally, after going-through all the variations set forth in the bill, the Solicitor came down to business, and charged the defendants as follows: “And the said Samuel D. Bryson, Thomas Shepherd (colored), and Thomas Magah-a, then and there him, the said G-lnen Vest., to-wit, with pistols, rocks, and knives, did assault, beat, wound, and ill-treat, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State. Eerguson, Solicitor.” This, we think, is a sufficient charge of an assault and battery, and the other statement of intention to beat, conspiracy, etc., may be treated as surplusage, or as matters of inducement only. This view of the case seems to be in the spirit of our legislation (Code, sec. 1183), and in harmony with our decisions thereunder. State v. Harris, 106 N. C., 682, and cases cited. While we feel called upon to sustain this bill for the reasons and upon the authorities we have given, we will say to Solicitors that it is much safer to adhere to precedents, as nearly as they can, in drawing their bills. This would save them and the courts much trouble. There w'as error in quashing the bill of indictment.

Error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Eueches, J.

The defendants are indicted for an assault on one Glenn Vest, and upon the case coming on for trial they moved to quash for duplicity in the bill of indictment. The motion was allowed, the bill of indictment quashed, and the State appealed. This bill should not be used as a precedent, as it is certainly liable to be criticised for its multiplicity, though it may not be necessary to quash it for “du *576 plicity.” There is much more of it than is necessary, by which we suppose the Solicitor intended to intensify the charge of an aggravated assault. But finally, after going-through all the variations set forth in the bill, the Solicitor came down to business, and charged the defendants as follows: “And the said Samuel D. Bryson, Thomas Shepherd (colored), and Thomas Magah-a, then and there him, the said G-lnen Vest., to-wit, with pistols, rocks, and knives, did assault, beat, wound, and ill-treat, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State. Eerguson, Solicitor.” This, we think, is a sufficient charge of an assault and battery, and the other statement of intention to beat, conspiracy, etc., may be treated as surplusage, or as matters of inducement only. This view of the case seems to be in the spirit of our legislation (Code, sec. 1183), and in harmony with our decisions thereunder. State v. Harris, 106 N. C., 682, and cases cited. While we feel called upon to sustain this bill for the reasons and upon the authorities we have given, we will say to Solicitors that it is much safer to adhere to precedents, as nearly as they can, in drawing their bills. This would save them and the courts much trouble. There w'as error in quashing the bill of indictment.

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 S.E. 492, 127 N.C. 574, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bryson-nc-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack