after argument. ā The defect which is pointed out,would be fatal upon a motion in arrest of judgement; and though it is true as has been argued, that the court has a discretion to quash or not, still it will quash where it is plain no judgment could be given in case oĆ a convienen: ā Therefore let this indictment be quashed, but the defendant shad not be discharged, but must be bound over to another term to answer the charge.
State v. Roach, 3 N.C. 352, 2 Hayw. 352 (1805)
July 1805
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 352, 2 Hayw. 352
State vs. Roach.
THIS was an indictment for passing counterfeit dollars, knowing them to be such. It was found in January term, 1805* The defendant pleaded to it, and it now stood for trial. The defendants counsel moved that it might be quashed, because there \vas no day stated on which the offence is supposed to have been committed, though the year is stated : there is a blank left in the indictment for the day and month. They said it was useless to proceed to trial, since the court must ate no judgment could be given upon a conviction: and they cited 2 Hawk. P. Crown, 25C. 259.