State v. . Dill

75 N.C. 257

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 5, 1876
• Status: Published

Opinion

Pearson, C. J.

Larceny at common law was the stealing of the goods and chattels of another. A promissory note or other chose in action was neither “ goods or chattels,” hence the necessity of a statute to make the stealing of a promissory note, or other chose in action an offence of the grade of larceny at common law; in like manner stealing growing corn was not larceny at common law, because it was attached to the realty, and a statute was necessary to create that an offence of the grade of larceny, in other words to make it larceny.

The indictment concludes at common law, and makes no reference to the statute by which the offence is created. Note the distinction between the cases where the statute merely affects the punishment, and where a statute creates the offence.

The Attorney General conceded that this defect was not embraced by the statute concerning formal defects in indictments, and he was not able to cite any authority, charging as an offence at common law, an act that is created an of-fence by statute.

There is error. The judgment ought to be arrested. This will be certified, &c.

Per Curiam. Judgment arrested.