State v. . Parker

91 N.C. 650
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 5, 1884·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Ashe, J.

There is no error in the charge given by His Honor. No doubt the seventh section was omitted to be mentioned in the eighth section through inadvertence ; or, it may be, that it was a mistake in the printer. But be that as it may, it can make no difference, for there can be no doubt, as His Honor held, that the defendant is indictable at common law.

*652 If a statute prohibit a matter of public grievance, or command a matter of public convenience, all acts or omissions contrary to the prohibition or command of the statute, being misdemeanors at common law, are punishable by indictment, if the statute specify no other mode of proceeding. Arch. Cr. Law 2; 2 Hawk., ch. 25, § 4. There is no other mode of proceeding specified in the act; ergo, the defendant is indictable at common law. Let this be certified, &c.

No error. Affirmed.

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

State v. . Parker, 91 N.C. 650 (N.C. 1884).

91 N.C. 650 (State v. . Parker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. . Bishop
45 S.E.2d 858 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
State v. Brown
221 N.C. 301 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
State v. . R. R.
59 S.E. 570 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
State v. Southern Railway Co.
145 N.C. 495 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
State v. Holloman.
52 S.E. 408 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
State v. Rippy.
37 S.E. 148 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
State v. . Pierce
31 S.E. 847 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
State v. Joyce
28 S.E. 366 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
State v. Addington
27 S.E. 988 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
State v. . Ostwalt
24 S.E. 660 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
State v. . Bloodworth
94 N.C. 917 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)