State v. . Lancaster

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Lancaster

84 S.E. 529, 169 N.C. 284, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 208

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 10, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 529 (State v. . Lancaster) 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. . Lancaster, 84 S.E. 529, 169 N.C. 284, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 208 (N.C. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

Tbe defendants were indicted for an affray. Tbe indictment charged that tbe defendants “did willfully and unlawfully assemble together, and did mutually assault and beat each other, Richard Parker by using language calculated and intended to bring on a fight and a fight ensuing, and James Lancaster using a deadly weapon, towit, a gun, and to, with, and against each other in a public place did fight and make an affray,” etc.

The court, on its own motion, quashed the indictment as to Parker and dismissed the action as to him, from which decision the State appealed. Revisal, 3216 (3).

In S. v. Fanning, 94 N. C., 940, the defendants were indicted for an-affray, and it was held that if a person by such abusive language or *285 offensive conduct towards another as is calculated and intended to bring on a fight induces that other to strike him, he is guilty, although he did not return the blow. To same purport, S. v. Davis, 80 N. C., 351; S. v. Robbins, 78 N. C., 431; S. v. Downing, 74 N. C., 184; S. v. Perry, 50 N. C., 9. Here the charge is, “Did mutually assault and beat each other.”

In S. v. Griffin, 125 N. C., 692, it was held that the place need not be charged nor proven. The form of the indictment is sufficient. Revisal, 3254, 3255.

His Honor seems to have been of the opinion that the defendant Parker could not be tried for the affray in the Superior Court, because he did not use a deadly weapon. In S. v. Coppersmith, 88 N. C., 614, it is held: “An affray is cognizable in the Superior Court as to both defendants where it appears that a deadly weapon was used by either.” . This has been cited and approved, S. v. Albertson, 113 N. C., 634. To same effect, S. v. Ray, 89 N. C., 587, and cases cited to that case and to S. v. Ray in the Anno. Ed.

If Parker,- not having used a deadly weapon, had been convicted or acquitted before a justice of the peace, this would have been a full defense as to him (S. v. Fagg, 125 N. C., 609), but this could not appear cm a motion to quash.

The judgment quashing the bill as to the defendant Parker is

Reversed.

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

Clark, C. J.

Tbe defendants were indicted for an affray. Tbe indictment charged that tbe defendants “did willfully and unlawfully assemble together, and did mutually assault and beat each other, Richard Parker by using language calculated and intended to bring on a fight and a fight ensuing, and James Lancaster using a deadly weapon, towit, a gun, and to, with, and against each other in a public place did fight and make an affray,” etc.

The court, on its own motion, quashed the indictment as to Parker and dismissed the action as to him, from which decision the State appealed. Revisal, 3216 (3).

In S. v. Fanning, 94 N. C., 940, the defendants were indicted for an-affray, and it was held that if a person by such abusive language or *285 offensive conduct towards another as is calculated and intended to bring on a fight induces that other to strike him, he is guilty, although he did not return the blow. To same purport, S. v. Davis, 80 N. C., 351; S. v. Robbins, 78 N. C., 431; S. v. Downing, 74 N. C., 184; S. v. Perry, 50 N. C., 9. Here the charge is, “Did mutually assault and beat each other.”

In S. v. Griffin, 125 N. C., 692, it was held that the place need not be charged nor proven. The form of the indictment is sufficient. Revisal, 3254, 3255.

His Honor seems to have been of the opinion that the defendant Parker could not be tried for the affray in the Superior Court, because he did not use a deadly weapon. In S. v. Coppersmith, 88 N. C., 614, it is held: “An affray is cognizable in the Superior Court as to both defendants where it appears that a deadly weapon was used by either.” . This has been cited and approved, S. v. Albertson, 113 N. C., 634. To same effect, S. v. Ray, 89 N. C., 587, and cases cited to that case and to S. v. Ray in the Anno. Ed.

If Parker,- not having used a deadly weapon, had been convicted or acquitted before a justice of the peace, this would have been a full defense as to him (S. v. Fagg, 125 N. C., 609), but this could not appear cm a motion to quash.

The judgment quashing the bill as to the defendant Parker is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E. 529, 169 N.C. 284, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lancaster-nc-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack