State v. Chandler, 9 N.C. 439, 2 Hawks 439 (1823)

June 1823 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

9 N.C. 439, 2 Hawks 439

State v. Chandler.

From Granville.

Where an indictment is framed ou a statute of thirty years standing which prohibits an offence after a specified time, it is not usual, or necessary, it should allege express?;/, that the offence was committed after the making of the statute— aliier, if the statute be a recent one.

In a bill of indictment, indorsed “ a true bill,” and to the subscription of A. B. the foreman, the letters F. G. J. added, will be sufficient to indicate that he acted as foreman, where it appears from the record, that A. 11. was in fact the foreman of the Grand Jury, when the bill was found — And if no letters had been added, after his name, his subscription to the indorsement could only be referred to his official act as foreman, and would therefore be sufficient.

This was an indictment, containing two counts — the. first was framed on the act of If. 1, ch. 339, N. II. to pre - vent malicious and unlawful maiming and wounding— the second was a count for an assault and battery. The charge, in the first count was, that Use Defendant, ou purpose, unlawfully bit off the left ear of Henry Yancey, with an intent to disfigure him, and concluded contra for mam statuli.

The Defendant, on conviction, was sentenced to bo punished under the statute, by a fine of $50, and imprisonment for sis calendar months ; from which, he ap pealed.

¡Harwell, in this Court, contended, that the offence should have been charged, as having been commitled afier the 1st day of May, 1792, because the dth section of the act of 1791 enacts, that no person or persons shall he subject to the penalties inflicted by this act, unless the offence, with which such person or persons may be charged, shall be committed after the first day of May next.

He further objected, that Use record before the Court did not shew that any bill, of indictment had ever been found by a Grand Jury, against the Defendant. The record stated, that William Bullock was appointed foreman of the Grand Jury, and that the hill on which the Defendant was tried, was returned into Court, indorsed Si a true bill, Win. Bullock, F. G. J.and this, it was contended, was not an official certificate by William Bullock, as foreman, for the letters F. G. J. meant nothing.

Taylor, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

An objection is taken to this indictment, that it contains no averment that the offence was committed after the 1st Máy, 1792, which, it is alleged, is essential on an indictment upon a statute which prohibits an offence after a specified time. The authority referred to, lays down the rule, that where the prohibiting statute is recent, it is usual to allege expressly, that the offence was committed after the making of the statute ; but where the statute is ancient, this is not usual, and does not seem to be in any case necessary. Now it must be presumed, that a statute which was passed upwards of thirty years ago, must be generally known, and that no persons can be surprised, at this time, by a "charge under the act, when the indictment concludes against its form : nor would the averment, that the offence was committed after the 1st May, 1792, render the charge more certain, than when it is .specified to be committed in June, 1821.

It is also objected, that the person who subscribes the indorsement on the bill, does not appear to have done so as foreman; that the letters, following his name, are equivocal, and may import many things. But it appears upon this record, that William Bullock was foreman of the Grand Jury when the bill was ibunó, and therefore, if no letters had been added after bis name, his subscription to the indorsement could only be- referred to his official act as foreman. The signature cannot bo refer” red to Bniiork's natural or prívalo capacity, for that gave ¡¡un no right to authenticate asi official paper, but his políticas capacity did \ in the same manner, as if a magistrate signs a warrant, or a judgment, without any letters indicating his judicial character, the signature must, nevertheless, be referral to that. There must he judgment for the Stale.