Art. I, sec. 12 of our Constitution requires a bill of indictment, unless waived, for all criminal actions originating in the Superior Court, and a valid bill is necessary to vest./the court with authority to determine the question of guilt or innocence. S. v. Helms, 247 N.C. 740, 102 S.E. 2d 243; S. v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E. 2d 166.
What are the essentials for a valid bill of indictment? Parker, J., *516gave a clear and concise answer to this question in S. v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 77 S.E. 2d 917. He said: “The authorities are in unison that an indictment, whether at common law or under a statute, to be good must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be charged. The purpose of such constitutional provisions is: (1) such certainty in the statement of the accusation as will identify the offense with which the accused is sought to be charged; (2) to protect the accused from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; (3) to enable the accused to prepare for trial, and (4) to enable the court, on 'conviction or plea of nolo contendere or guilty to pronounce sentence according to the rights of the case. (Cases cited.)” The essentials have been restated in equally clear and emphatic language in several recent cases. S. v. Walker, 249 N.C. 35; S. v. Banks, 247 N.C. 745, 102 S.E. 2d 245; S. v. Jordan, 247 N.C. 253, 100 S.E. 2d 497; S. v. Helms, supra; S. v. Cox, 244 N.C. 57, 92 S.E. 2d 413; S. v. Strickland, 243 N.C. 100, 89 S.E. 2d 781; S. v. Burton, 243 N.C. 277, 90 S.E. 2d 390; S. v. Scott, 241 N.C. 178, 84 S.E. 2d 654.
Mere conclusions of the pleader are not sufficient. A plain and concise statement of facts is required by statute in both civil (G.S. 1-122) and criminal (G.S. 15-153) actions.
When this rule is applied to the bill here considered, is it sufficient to meet the test? The answer can only be found by looking at the statutes defining the asserted criminal conduct.
G.S. 106-283 declares it unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale agricultural seed for seeding purposes: “(3) Not labeled in accordance with the provisions of s. 106-281, or having a false or misleading label, or having seed analysis tags attached to the containers of seed bearing thereon a liability or nonwarranty clause: Provided, ■that the provisions of s. 106-281 shall not apply to seed being sold by a grower to a dealer, or to seed consigned to or in storage in a seed cleaning or processing establishment for cleaning or processing. . . .”
Agricultural seed sold or exposed for sale are required to be labeled. G. S. 106-281. The provisions of thd-s section pertinent to tobacco seed provide: “(1) The label requirements for peanuts, cotton and tobacco seed shall be limited to: (a) Lot number or other identification, (b) Origin, if known; if unknown, so stated, (c) Commonly accepted name of kind and variety, (d) Percentage of germination with month .and year of test, (e) Name, and address of person who labeled said seed or who sells, offers, or exposes said seed for sale.”
“ (7) No person shall be subject to the penalties of this article for having sold, offered, or, exposed for sale in this State any agricultural *517or vegetable seeds which were incorrectly labeled or represented as to origin, kind and variety, when such seeds cannot be identified by examination thereof, unless he has failed to obtain an invoice or grower’s declaration giving origin, kindi and variety, and to take such other .precautions as may be necessary to insure the identity to be that stated.”
. The first count merely alleges a sale or offer to sell or exposure for ■sale of tobacco seed not labeled as required by G.S. 106-281. It does not tell (a) to whom the seed were sold or offered for sale or where or how exposed for sale, or (b) the manner in which the label failed to comply with statutory requirements. Was the asserted failure to label as required by the statute due to (a) absence of the name and address of the person labeling, or (b) an incorrect statement of germination or absence of a statement of germination, or (c) an incorrect statement as to date tested for germination, or (d) an incorrect statement of the variety of seed in the container?
Looking at the evidence and not at the indictment, it appears that defendant, a grower, sold to Penn Hardware Company, a seed dealer, tobacco seed which it in turn sold to tobacco farmers. Some of the seed so sold produced tobacco of a discount variety, 244, instead of 711 as labeled. Different varieties of tobacco cannot be determined by an examination of the seed; only the resulting plant will show the difference. Conviction was sought on the first count because the label named the seed as variety 711 when in fact it was 244 or a mixture with 244 predominating. There is no suggestion that the label failed in any other way to comply with the requirements of G.S. 106-281. The court charged if the defendant willfully failed to take precautions necessary to keep the seed up to the standard stated to return a verdict of guilty on this count. Notwithstanding this direction the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
The second count charges a sale or exposure for sale of seed having a false and misleading label in that the label stated the seed to be 711 “when in fact said seed was not Bissette’s 711 tobacco seed.” The evidence offered to support this count is the same evidence offered to support the first count. The jury found defendant guilty — an incongruous result, demonstrating the wisdom of the rule requiring a statement of facts and not mere conclusions.
' The bill of indictment makes the sale of the incorrectly labeled seed the basis for the prosecution. Where a sale is prohibited, it is necessary, for a conviction, to allege in the bill of indictment the name of the person to whom the sale was made or that his name is unknown, unless some statute eliminates that requirement. The proof *518must, of course, conform to the allegations and establish a sale to the named person or that the purchaser was in fact unknown. S. v. Tisdale, 145 N.C. 422; S. v. Dowdy, 145 N.C. 432; S. v. Miller, 93 N.C. 511; S. v. Trice, 88 N.C 627; S. v. Pickens, 79 N.C. 652; S. v. Stamey, 71 N.C. 202; S. v. Faucett, 20 N.C. 239; S. v. Blythe, 18 N.C. 199.
King v. State, 286 S.W. 2d 422 (Tex.) is the only case we have found which is based on the -sale of falsely labeled agricultural seed. The court -there held the bill fatally defective for failure to name the purchaser. True, the court there points out their statutes provide “To charge an unlawful sale, it is necessary to name the purchaser”; but they also refer to earlier decisions which recognize the rule of the common law.'
■ It is not now1 necessary to allege the name of the purchaser of intoxicating liquors illegally -sold. G.S. 18-17.
G.S. 15-151 likewise modifies the common law. It is not now necessary to name the injured party where prosecution is based on forgery or other fraud. It is, however, necessary to allege and prove the evil .intent when fraud is the foundation for the prosecution. S. v. Phillips, 228 N.C. 446, 45 S.E. 2d 535; S. v. Davenport, 227 N.C. 475, 42 S.E. 2d 686; S. v. Horton, 199 N.C. 771, 155 S.E. 866; S. v. Reed, 196 N.C. 357, 145 S.E. 691; S. v. Edwards, 190 N.C. 322, 130 S.E. 10; S. v. Farmer, 104 N.C. 887.
Defendant stands convicted on the second count. It alleges a sale of seed with a false and misleading label. It does not name a purchaser. It does not charge the incorrect statement of variety appearing on the label was part of -a plan to defraud. Intent is ignored.
Defendant has been convicted on a bill which fails to state facts constituting a crime. His motion to quash should have been allowed.