State v. . Luther

77 N.C. 492
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1877
StatusPublished

This text of 77 N.C. 492 (State v. . Luther) 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. . Luther, 77 N.C. 492 (N.C. 1877).

Opinion

The defendant was held to answer before a justice of the peace for failure to work on a certain public road in Ashe County. (See Laws 1874-75, ch. 161.) Upon motion of the defendant, the justice of the peace dismissed the action upon the ground that the report of the commissioners who laid off said road had not been confirmed by the county commissioners, and the complainant (the overseer) appealed to the Superior Court. In that court the jury found a special verdict: (1) That the defendant lives within 3 miles of said road; (2) that he had two weeks notice to work on the same; (3) that the overseer did not notify the defendant what kind of tools to bring; and (4) that the defendant refused to work on the road. Thereupon, his Honor held that the defendant was not guilty; for that the warrant was too (493) indefinite and charged no offense, nor did it conclude against the peace and dignity of the State or against the statute. From which ruling Cowles, solicitor for the State, appealed. The State and the overseer obtained a warrant against the defendant for failing to work a public road. It is doubtful whether *Page 354 it was issued for the penalty or the misdemeanor. His Honor, in disposing of the case, seems to have treated it as the latter.

In looking through the record, as we are required to do, we find the warrant fatally defective because it does not conclude contra formamstatuti, which is not cured by the statute of jeofails.

As an indictment, according to all the forms and authorities, it should so conclude; and as a proceeding for a penalty, it must so conclude in order to show the defendant "how it become due." Turnpike Co. v. McCarson,18 N.C. 306.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

Cited: S. v. Lowder, 85 N.C. 565.

(494)

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

Related

Buncombe Turnpike Co. v. M'Carson
18 N.C. 306 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1835)
State v. . Lowder
85 N.C. 564 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 N.C. 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-luther-nc-1877.