State v. . Hinton

74 S.E. 104, 158 N.C. 625, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 102

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: March 20, 1912
• Status: Published

Opinion

AlleN, J.

The motion for a bill of particulars is addressed to the discretion of the court, and is not reviewable, unless there is a gross abuse of discretion. S. v. Dewey, 139 N. C., 556.

In this case there is not only no evidence of the abuse of the discretion vested in the judge, but there is no statement in the recórd tending to show that the defendant required 'any information, outside of the indictment, to enable him to make his defense.

There is nothing in S. v. Corbin, 157 N. C., 619, which interferes with the discretion of the judge, or is in conflict with the law declared in S. v. Dewey, supra.

The question under consideration in the Corbin case was a motion in arrest of judgment, the indictment following the words of the statute, and it was said: “If the defendant did not know which stream he was charged with polluting, or the means alleged to have been used, he could have obtained specific information by asking for a bill of particulars under section 3244 of the Revisal,” which is no intimation that if the bill of particulars had been asked for it would not have been discretionary with the judge to grant or refuse it.

The motions to quash and in arrest of judgment rest on the same ground, the insufficiency of the warrant,’ and in determining them the affidavit and order of arrest must be considered together (S. v. Yellowday, 152 N. C., 793), and when so con sidered, the warrant follows substantially the words of the statute, which is sufficient. S. v. Harrison, 145 N. C., 408; S. v. Leeper, 146 N. C., 655; S. v. Corbin, 157 N. C., 619.

There is

No error.