69 S.E. 66 | N.C. | 1910
The defendants were indicted for throwing stones at a train, under Rev., 3763. Motion was made to quash the bill because the offense charged was not a joint one, and each defendant was entitled to a separate trial. The court, in its discretion, overruled the motion. This was a matter clearly within its sound discretion and will not be reviewed by this Court except in cases of gross abuse. S. v. Carrawan,
There was also a motion to quash on the ground that the bill was vague and uncertain in the charge "from one station to another." The bill followed the statute and as a rule that is all that is necessary. "In all indictments when further information not required to be set out therein is desirable for the better defense of the accused, the court, upon motion, may, in its discretion, require the solicitor to furnish a bill of particulars of such matters." Rev., 3244.
One of the defendants, being on the stand in his own behalf, (608) was asked if he had theretofore been convicted and served a sentence upon the roads. The defendants objected to the question on the ground that the record was the best evidence. The question was for the purpose of impeaching, and was clearly competent. S. v. Lawhorn,
After verdict, the defendants moved in arrest of judgment because the bill of indictment did not contain the word "feloniously." The court denied the motion and defendants excepted. Indictments for felony must contain the word "feloniously," S. v. Shaw,
This is an entirely different proposition from that presented in S. v.Fesperman,
A case exactly in point is S. v. Harris,
(610) If the word "feloniously" can be dispensed with in perjury, though still a felony, certainly it is not required in this offense which the Legislature has made a misdemeanor.
No error.
Cited: Council v. Pridgen, ante, 452; S. v. Hyman,