132 S.E. 795 | N.C. | 1926
The defendant was indicted for operating a lottery, and upon the return of a special verdict he was adjudged guilty. From the judgment pronounced he appealed. *701 The indictment charges that the defendant "unlawfully and wilfully did operate a lottery, to wit, a slot machine (chapter 138, Public Laws 1923) against the form of the statute," etc. The statute provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to operate, keep in his possession or in the possession of any other person, firm or corporation, for the purpose of being operated, any slot machine that shall not produce for or give to the person who places coin or money, or the representative of either, the same return in market value each and every time such machine is operated by placing money or coin or the representative of either therein. Each time said machine is operated as aforesaid shall constitute a separate offense." 3 C.S., 4437(a).
Does the indictment charge a breach of this statute? An indictment shall be deemed to be sufficient in form if it express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner; and it will not be held defective by reason of any informality or refinement if the matter appearing therein be sufficient to enable the court to proceed to judgment. C.S., 4623. The specific question is whether the purported breach as set out in the bill is "plain, intelligible and explicit." Chief Justice Ruffin
suggested that an informality can embrace, perhaps, only the mode of stating the fact, but if the fact be one which essentially enters into the offense it must be set forth (S. v. Moses,
No motion in arrest of judgment was made on the trial, but in S. v.Watkins,
As the indictment does not charge a criminal offense the judgment must be arrested.
Judgment arrested.