State v. . Robbins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Robbins

31 N.C. 356

DecidedJune 5, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 31 N.C. 356 (State v. . Robbins) 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. . Robbins, 31 N.C. 356 (N.C. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

Pearson, J.

There is no ground, upon which the judgment ought to be arrested. On the contrary, the Attorney General has framed an indictment, unencumbered by useless words; which, from -its brevity and clearness, may well be adopted as a precedent.

The averment, that the defendant “unlawfully did sell and deliver” to the slave, would not be supported by proof of a sale and delivery to the slave as the agent and for and on account of his owner ; nor is it necessary to negative an order of the owner or manager, the offence having been committed in the night time. State v. Miller, 7 Ired. 725, decides both points.

The slave is sufficiently described by his name. A further description, by giving the name of the owner, Í3 *358 not necessary. The law only requires “certainty to a certain intent in general” in indictments for this offence.

The Court below erred in arresting the judgment. There must be a judgment for the State.

Per Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly.

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

Pearson, J.

There is no ground, upon which the judgment ought to be arrested. On the contrary, the Attorney General has framed an indictment, unencumbered by useless words; which, from -its brevity and clearness, may well be adopted as a precedent.

The averment, that the defendant “unlawfully did sell and deliver” to the slave, would not be supported by proof of a sale and delivery to the slave as the agent and for and on account of his owner ; nor is it necessary to negative an order of the owner or manager, the offence having been committed in the night time. State v. Miller, 7 Ired. 725, decides both points.

The slave is sufficiently described by his name. A further description, by giving the name of the owner, Í3 *358 not necessary. The law only requires “certainty to a certain intent in general” in indictments for this offence.

The Court below erred in arresting the judgment. There must be a judgment for the State.

Per Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 N.C. 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robbins-nc-1849.