State v. . Thompson

18 S.E. 211, 113 N.C. 638
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1893
StatusPublished

This text of 18 S.E. 211 (State v. . Thompson) 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. . Thompson, 18 S.E. 211, 113 N.C. 638 (N.C. 1893).

Opinion

The jurors, etc., present that John Thompson, etc., did unlawfully commit perjury upon the trial of an action in the Mayor's Court in the city of Wilmington in said county, wherein the State of North Carolina was plaintiff and John Thompson was defendant, by falsely asserting on oath, "in substance, as follows, to wit: `About 8 o'clock on 25 February I was between Schulkin and Dennis's stores; a man passed in about six or seven feet of me and made an oath; he had a gun in his hand; he walked to the corner and stood up by a post; in a few minutes a car came up to the end of the switch, and as the man changed the trolley he fired; I am positive the man that fired the gun was Buck Wright; I have known him for some time; I have seen the gun before; Wright left it in my shop to be repaired last Christmas; I put a new spring in it' — the said John Thompson knowing the said statements to be false, against the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State." The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the indictment was not sufficient in its averments to charge the crime of perjury, as it did not specifically charge that the matters, alleged to be sworn to, were wilfully, absolutely and falsely in a matter material to the point in issue. The motion was denied, and the defendant appealed (639) from the judgment pronounced. The averments in the indictment are sufficient. It complies in all essential particulars with the form prescribed by the Act of 1889, which has been approved by this Court in S. v. Gates, 107 N.C. 832, and in other cases.

Affirmed.

Cited: S. v. Mitchell, 132 N.C. 1036; S. v. Harris, 145 N.C. 458; S.v. Cline, 146 N.C. 642. *Page 466

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

Related

State v. . Gates
12 S.E. 319 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
State v. Mitchell.
43 S.E. 938 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
State v. . Harris
59 S.E. 115 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
State v. . Cline
61 S.E. 522 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 S.E. 211, 113 N.C. 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thompson-nc-1893.