State v. . Sprinkle

65 N.C. 463
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 65 N.C. 463 (State v. . Sprinkle) 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. . Sprinkle, 65 N.C. 463 (N.C. 1871).

Opinion

Boyden, J.

At the Spring Term, of the Superior Court of Wilkes, 1870, the defendant with others was indicted in the following words and figures:

" State oe North Carolina,
“ Iredell County.
Superior Court, Spring Term, 1870.
The jurors for the State on their oath present that Noah Sprinkle, Wiley Myers and Mack Lynch, late of said County •of Wilkes, on the first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, with force and arms in the County aforesaid, in and upon.the body of Moses Cock•erham, an assault with deadly weapons did make, and him the said Moses Coekerham, then and there did beat, wound and ill treat to the great damage of him the said Moses; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”

The record shows, that at the Spring Term, 1870, of the •Superior Court of Wilkes, a bill of indictment in the words *464 and figures above stated was sent to a regular grand jury of the said County, and that the same was returned into Court, endorsed a “true bill,” with the name of the foreman, D. A. Leach signed thereto. Upon this indictment the defendant, Sprinkle was convicted: but upon motion of defendant’s counsel his Honor arrested the judgment on account of the clerical mistake of the word Iredell in the caption.

There was error in ordering the arrest of judgment. We think this indictment would have been good before the act, Revised Code, chap. 35, sec. 20; State v. Warden, N. C. 163, but however that may be, we are clearly of opinion that this defect after verdict, is cured by the said statute. This will be certified that the Court may proceed to judgment agreeable to Law.

Per Curiam, Error.

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

Related

State v. Royall
188 S.E.2d 50 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. . Davis
33 S.E.2d 623 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
State v. . Francis
72 S.E. 1041 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
State v. . Van Doran
13 S.E. 32 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)
State v. . Arnold
11 S.E. 990 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 N.C. 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sprinkle-nc-1871.