State v. Patterson, 29 N.C. 70, 7 Ired. 70 (1846)

Dec. 1846 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

29 N.C. 70, 7 Ired. 70

THE STATE vs. PATTERSON.

Tho defendant was indicted and convicted upon the following indictment, to-wit:

“STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, } Superior Court of Law, Fail Greene County. £ Term, 1846.

The jurors for the State upon their oath present, that John Patterson, late of the County of Greene, on the 1st day of August, 1845, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the taking of this inquisition with force and arms, at and in the County aforesaid, did keep and maintain a certain common ill governed and disorderly house, and, in his said house, for his own lucre and gain, certain persons, as well free as slaves, to frequent and come together, then and on the said other days and times, there unlawfully and wilfully did cause and procure, and the said persons in his said house at unlawful times, as well in the night as in the day, then and on the said other days and times there to be and remain, drinking, tippling, and misbehaving themselves unlawfully and wilfully did permit and doth permit to the great damage and common nuisance of all the citizens of the State there inhabiting, residing and passing, to the evil example of all others in like case appending, and against the peace and dignity of the State.” Upon motion in arrest of judgment, held that this indictment did charge a criminal offence, and that it was not necessary to set farther the particulars, as the names of the parties, &c., though these particulars might be given in evidence on the trial.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Greene County, at the Pall Term, 1846, his Honor Judge Manly, presiding.

This was an indictment, as above set forth, and the defendant, being convicted, moved in arrest of judgment, that the indictment contained no criminal charge. The Judge refused the motion, and the defendant appealed.

Attorney General, for the State.

No counsel for the defendant.

Daniel, J.

We think that the Judge was right, in over-ruling the motion in arrest of judgment. The indictment is (with the omission of the words, “ cursing-, swearing, quarrelling”) a copy from the precedent, to be found in 2 Chitty C. Law, 40. The defendant is charged with keeping a common ilI-g-overned and disorderly house; and for lucre, causing persons, both free and slaves, to frequent it, and there to be and remain, drinking, tippling, and misbehaving themselves, &c. to the common nuisance of all the citizens of the State, there inhabiting, passing, &c. The State might, we think, be permitted to give evidence of particular acts of misbehavior of the inmates of the house, under the above general charges; as, that they gambled, quarrelled, fought,' got drunk, made great noises, cursing and swearing, to the annoyance of the people in the neighborhood. As in an indictment for keeping a bawdy house, so in this, it is not necessary to state particulars, as the names of those who frequent the house ; but evidences of particular instances of illicit intercourse may be given under the general charge. 2 Chiity C. L. 39, 40, (note.) We are of opinion, that the indictment does charge a criminal offence. The judgment therefore, is affirmed, and this opinion must be certified.

Per Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly.