State v. . Skidmore

14 S.E. 63, 109 N.C. 795

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: September 5, 1891
• Status: Published

Opinion

Claric, J.:

The indictment is sufficient in form under the ruling in State v. Burke, 108 N. C., 750, and State v. Dixon, 101 N. C., 741, and cases therein cited.

We apprehend, however, though the ground is not stated, that the learned Judge allowed the motion to quash because the Act of 1891 (ch. 205) makes all-offences which are punishable by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary, felonies, and the word “ feloniously ” is not used. State v. Purdie, 67 N. C., 25. The bill was defective in that particular, but it was error to quash it when an offence of this magnitude was charged. The Court should have held the prisoner, and given the Solicitor permission to send another bill curing the technical and verbal defect. In State v. Colbert, 75 N. C., 368, Reade, J., says: that the Courts do not favor quashing indictments, and that indictments for treason, felony and the higher misdemeanors will not be quashed except where it appears that the Court has not jurisdiction, or the matter charged is not indictable in any form. The reason is that to quash in such cases would release recognizances and cause delays, and that it would be trifling with public justice to quash for verbal defects in grave cases in which the public have an interest, when the irregularity or deficiency could be cured in a few moments and without postponing the trial to another term, by sending the witnesses before the grand jury with a more accurately drawn bill. Accordingly, in that case, while the Court held the indictment insufficient, it also held that it was error in the Court below to quash, and sent the case back, with directions that the Solicitor should send a more perfect bill. This was approved by Ashe, J., in State v. Knight, 84 N. C., 789, in which case, though the Court on appeal arrested the judgment for a defect in the indictment, it held that the Court below properly refused to quash the bill. Both cases have been cited and approved in State v. Flowers, at this term, and are supported by the highest authority elsewhere, as cited in that case.

Error.