State v. Robbins, 31 N.C. 356, 9 Ired. 356 (1849)

June 1849 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

31 N.C. 356, 9 Ired. 356

THE STATE vs. EDWIN ROBBINS.

an indictment for sailing to a slave in the night time, it is not necessary to negativo an order of the owner or manager, the offence having been committed in the night time.

In such an indictment, the slave is sufficiently identified by his name ; a further description, by giving the name of the owner, is not necessary. The case of The State v. Miller, 7 Ire. 725, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Edgecombe County, at the Spring Term 1849, his Honor Judge Settle presiding.

The defendant was tried and convicted upon the fol. lowing indictment, to-wit;

“State of Noetii Carolina, ) Superior Court of Law, Edgecombe County, y Fall Term, 1848.

1 “The jurors for the State, upon their oath, present, that Edwin Robbins, a licensed retailer of spirituous liquor, by a measure less than a quart, late of the County aforesaid, at and in said County, on the first day of September in the year eighteen hundred and forty-eight, and in the night time of said day, between the hours of sunset thereof and sunrise of the day next ensuing, to a slave, named Sampson, one pint of spirituous liquor unlawfully did sell and deliver, to the common nuisance of the good citizens of the State, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.

(Signed,) MOORE, Atto. Gen’I.

On motion of the defendant, the judgment was arrested,, and the Attorney General appealed.

Attorney General, for the State.

No counsel for the defendant.

Pearson, J.

There is no ground, upon which the judgment ought to be arrested. On the contrary, the Attorney General has framed an indictment, unencumbered by useless words; which, from -its brevity and clearness, may well be adopted as a precedent.

The averment, that the defendant “unlawfully did sell and deliver” to the slave, would not be supported by proof of a sale and delivery to the slave as the agent and for and on account of his owner ; nor is it necessary to negative an order of the owner or manager, the offence having been committed in the night time. State v. Miller, 7 Ired. 725, decides both points.

The slave is sufficiently described by his name. A further description, by giving the name of the owner, Í3 not necessary. The law only requires “certainty to a certain intent in general” in indictments for this offence.

The Court below erred in arresting the judgment. There must be a judgment for the State.

Per Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly.