State v. . Randall

87 N.C. 571
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 5, 1882·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

In the examination of the record, we discover that it makes no mention of the arraignment of the prisoners, nor of their putting in any pleas to the charge preferred in the bill of indictment. This omission may result from the inadvertence of the clerk to make the proper entry upon his record, or in making out the transcript therefrom,, and presents a proper case for the award of the *572 certiorari — the course pursued in State v. Craton, 6 Ired., 164, for the correction of the name of the judge who tried the cause in the court below.

If the fact be that there was no arraignment, no opportunity afforded the prisoners to plead, and no pleas put in io make an issue for the jury, t'heir verdict is a nullity as well as the judgment rendered thereon.

In this aspect of the case, and as the prisoners ask it, we -shall direct the issuing of the certiorari, to the end that such .corrections may be made in the superior court as are necessary to make the record truthful, of which the court has the undoubted power, as declared by Chief Justice Ruffin’ in ,the case referred to, and that a transcript thereof be sent to this court.

Pee Cueiam. Motion allowed.

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

State v. . Randall, 87 N.C. 571 (N.C. 1882).

87 N.C. 571 (State v. . Randall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. . Sandlin
72 S.E. 203 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
State ex rel. Fourth National Bank of Philadelphia v. Johnson
79 N.W. 1081 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)
State v. Surles
117 N.C. 720 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)