The indictment should set forth the legal siile of the Court before which the perjury is alledged to have been committed. The Judiciary Act of 177?, establishing the County and Superior Courts, gives the stile each, « Courts of Fleas and Quarter Sessions,” and “ Superior Courts of La-w.” The indictment in the present case charges the perjury to have been committed before “ a certain Superior Court begun and holden for the district of Hillsborough,” As the stile of the Court is not legally set forth the indictment is defective and the judgment mu3t he arrested.
State v. Street, 5 N.C. 156, 1 Mur. 156 (1807)
July 1807
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
5 N.C. 156, 1 Mur. 156
The State vs. Joseph Street
—From Hillsborough ough district.
for perjury, the stile of v tiie court wiiichthe luegel to committed must fortii.
The defendant was indicted for perjury .j and the indict-meat charged « that at a certain Superior Court begun for the district of Hillsborough on the sixth day 0f October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight • <p hundred and five, in the town of Hillsborough, in the coun-ty Orange, in the aforesaid district, before the Honora-Francis Lockp, Esq. Judge of the said Court, on the ®*Veen$ day of the said month in said year a certain issue joined in the said couft between the state and Ze-pbanah Tate, and others, in a certain prosecution for a riot, came to be tried in due form of Jaw, and was then and there tried by a certain Jury of the country in that behalf duly sworn and taken between the parties aforesaid ; and that upon the trial of the said issue so joined as aforesaid one Joseph Street, late of the county and district aforesaid, yeoman, appeared as a witness for and on behalf of (he state, and was sworn, and then and there did take his corporal oath upon the holy Gospel of God, before the said Francis Locke, Esq. Judge as aforesaid, to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth touching and cop. cerning the matter in question in the said prosecution & issue aforesaid, (the said Francis Locke, Esq. then and & (herejhaving sufficient and complete power and authority to administer an oath to the said Joseph Street in that behalf.)1* indictment then assigned the perjury, &c. the defendant convicted, and Duffey, counsel for the defendant, filed following reason in arrest of judgment, to wit: « thgt stile of the Court or of the Judge presiding therein when the perjury is alledged to have been committed, i» duly or legally set forth ; nor any jurisdiction shewn administer such oath as is alledged to have been taken falsely and corruptly” — and the case was ordered to be to this Court for the opinion of the Judges.