State v. . Haddock

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Haddock

13 S.E. 714, 109 N.C. 873

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 13 S.E. 714 (State v. . Haddock) 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. . Haddock, 13 S.E. 714, 109 N.C. 873 (N.C. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Davis, J.:

By section .1113 of The Code it is made a misdemeanor for anyone to “ attempt, in a wanton and malicious manner, to destroy the reputation of an innocent woman, by words written or spoken, which amount to a charge of incon-tinency.” The defendant is indicted under this section, and the only question presented for our consideration is, does the indictment “express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible and explicit manner.”

If it does, it is sufficient See The Code, § 1183. Theindictment follows the very language of the statute; but it is said that the indictment should set forth the words “spoken,” and the circumstances under which they were spoken, in order to enable the Court to see whether they amount to a charge of incontinency, and to enable the defendant to know what he is to answer.

*875 The charge is clearly and distinctly made, in the very language of the statute, that he wantonly and maliciously attempted to injure and destroy the character of Lany Booth, an innocent and virtuous woman. Whether she is an innocent and virtuous woman, and whether he has attempted, by words spoken, to injure and destroy her character, are matters for proof.

It is not necessary to set forth the words by which the attempt was made. The offence is created by statute, and it is sufficient if the indictment follows the words of the statute. State v. George, 93 N. C., 568, and cases cited. The Legislature has thought wise to relax the stringency of the common law requirements in indictments under which defendants frequently escape trial and punishment by informalities and refinements. Tixefiode, §1183, supra.

In the case of State v. Eden, 95 N..C., 693, an indictment, in form precisely like this, was before this Court in which there was a motion in arrest of judgment. That was the defendant’s appeal, and a new trial was awarded because of error in instructions to the jury upon the evidence, but the Court refused to arrest the judgment. It is true that the form of the indictment was not passed on, but Smith, C. J., said: “We do not find it necessary to pass upon the form of the indictment, * * * since we propose to dispose of the appeal upon the ruling to which the first exception is taken, with the remark that similar forms of indictment have been heretofore before this Court, and acted on without objection, for these alleged defects,” State v. Eden, supra, and cases there cited.

Error.

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

Davis, J.:

By section .1113 of The Code it is made a misdemeanor for anyone to “ attempt, in a wanton and malicious manner, to destroy the reputation of an innocent woman, by words written or spoken, which amount to a charge of incon-tinency.” The defendant is indicted under this section, and the only question presented for our consideration is, does the indictment “express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible and explicit manner.”

If it does, it is sufficient See The Code, § 1183. Theindictment follows the very language of the statute; but it is said that the indictment should set forth the words “spoken,” and the circumstances under which they were spoken, in order to enable the Court to see whether they amount to a charge of incontinency, and to enable the defendant to know what he is to answer.

*875 The charge is clearly and distinctly made, in the very language of the statute, that he wantonly and maliciously attempted to injure and destroy the character of Lany Booth, an innocent and virtuous woman. Whether she is an innocent and virtuous woman, and whether he has attempted, by words spoken, to injure and destroy her character, are matters for proof.

It is not necessary to set forth the words by which the attempt was made. The offence is created by statute, and it is sufficient if the indictment follows the words of the statute. State v. George, 93 N. C., 568, and cases cited. The Legislature has thought wise to relax the stringency of the common law requirements in indictments under which defendants frequently escape trial and punishment by informalities and refinements. Tixefiode, §1183, supra.

In the case of State v. Eden, 95 N..C., 693, an indictment, in form precisely like this, was before this Court in which there was a motion in arrest of judgment. That was the defendant’s appeal, and a new trial was awarded because of error in instructions to the jury upon the evidence, but the Court refused to arrest the judgment. It is true that the form of the indictment was not passed on, but Smith, C. J., said: “We do not find it necessary to pass upon the form of the indictment, * * * since we propose to dispose of the appeal upon the ruling to which the first exception is taken, with the remark that similar forms of indictment have been heretofore before this Court, and acted on without objection, for these alleged defects,” State v. Eden, supra, and cases there cited.

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 S.E. 714, 109 N.C. 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-haddock-nc-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack