State v. Hettrick, 126 N.C. 977 (1900)

Feb. 20, 1900 · Supreme Court of North Carolina
126 N.C. 977
STATE v. JOHN HETTRICK

STATE v. JOHN HETTRICK.

(Decided February 20, 1900.)

Wo/rrani under Town Ordinance of Elisabeth Qity — Creating «, Disturbance — Indefinite Charge.

A warrant charging the creation of a disturbance, without specifying how it was done, within the corporate limits, is fatally defective-

WARRANT under town ordinance for creating a- disturbance-, within the corporate limits of Elizabeth City, tried, on appeal from the Mayor’s Court, before Stwrbuck, at Fall Term,, 1899, of the Superior Court of PasquotaNk County.

The defendant, on conviction, moved in arrest of judgments *978Motion denied. Judgment. Appeal by defendant to the ■Supremo Court.

The town ordinance and the warrant are stated in the ■opinion.

Messrs. F. F. Aydlelt, and P. E. Williams, for appellant.

.Attorney-General Zeb. V. Walser, for the State.

Faircloth, C. J.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced for violating the following ordinance of the town of Elizabeth City: ‘All persons guilty of riotous and disorderly conduct, loud and boisterous cursing and swearing, or the use of vulgar or obscene language, indecent exposure of ■person, or creating a disturbance within the corporate limits of the town; of trespassing or of delivering’ or of sending insulting, vulgar or profane notes or cards, shall be arrested,” ■etc.

The charge made against the defendant was for unlawfully ■and wilfully violating said ordinance “by creating a disturbance within the corporation limits of the town, of Elizabeth City, contrary to the said ordinance,” etc.

It will be observed that the ordinance specifies numerous offences, but the warrant alleges nothing except “creating a disturbance^ within the town limits. How and in what way o-r manner the disturbance Was created is not alleged, and therein the warrant, is fatally defective. A disturbance may .be created in many ways, but the accused, as of right, must be •Informed of what act of his tire State complains, before entering his plea. Otherwise he is ill prepared to come and defend himself. The charge of committing a “disturbance <of divers citizens” by noise in tire pnblic street does not set •forth any criminal offense. If it is an offense, it is a miusance, and should be charged as such. Com. v. Smith, 6 Cusbing (Mass.), 80.

Judgment arrested.