State v. . Spray

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Spray

18 S.E. 700, 113 N.C. 686

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 S.E. 700 (State v. . Spray) 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. . Spray, 18 S.E. 700, 113 N.C. 686 (N.C. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Bujxwell, J.:

We concur with his Honor in the opinion that the facts found by the special verdict do not constitute a violation of section 2592 of The Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to wilfully' interrupt or disturb any public school. The act of the defendant may have prevented the coming together of the school, meaning thereby an assemblage of pupils and teachers, but it cannot be said that it interrupted or disturbed such an assemblage. The statute was contrived to put the schools of the State under the protection awarded by law to religious assemblages, and the principles that govern the prosecution of persons charged with disturbing religious meetings (State v. Jacobs, 103 N. C., 397) must control this. There was no formal verdict of not guilty in accordance with the opinion of the Court, as seems to be required by the ruling in State v. Moore, 107 N. C., 770, and State v. Monger, ibid., 771. This is not necessary since the decision in State v. Ewing, 108 N. C, 775, which has established what is the better practice.

No Error.

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

Bujxwell, J.:

We concur with his Honor in the opinion that the facts found by the special verdict do not constitute a violation of section 2592 of The Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to wilfully' interrupt or disturb any public school. The act of the defendant may have prevented the coming together of the school, meaning thereby an assemblage of pupils and teachers, but it cannot be said that it interrupted or disturbed such an assemblage. The statute was contrived to put the schools of the State under the protection awarded by law to religious assemblages, and the principles that govern the prosecution of persons charged with disturbing religious meetings (State v. Jacobs, 103 N. C., 397) must control this. There was no formal verdict of not guilty in accordance with the opinion of the Court, as seems to be required by the ruling in State v. Moore, 107 N. C., 770, and State v. Monger, ibid., 771. This is not necessary since the decision in State v. Ewing, 108 N. C, 775, which has established what is the better practice.

No Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 S.E. 700, 113 N.C. 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-spray-nc-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack