delivered the opinion of the Court: As to the first reason in arrest, the act was in force from and after the first day of April 1802, and the indictment charges that the offence was committed on the 12th day of November 1803, against the form of the act. If the offence was committed against the act, it must necessarily have been committed after the act was in force 3 for if it were not, the Defendant could not be guilty of the *188 offence, charged against him, and must have been acquitted. As to the second reason in arrest, nothing nep(j ¡je avel.re(iJ which is not necessary to constitute the offence, charged in the indictment. It is not necessary there should be a subscribing witness to a bond, and although there be one, it is not his signature, but the signing and sealing by the obligor, that constitute the writing a bond. The Indictment avers, that the writing set forth, purports to be signed and sealed by the obli-gor, which is all that is necessary to constitute flic of-fence, and bring it within the act. And although another averment might have been made with propriety, it does not follow that it ought to have been made. Let the reasons in arrest of judgment, be overruled.
State v. . Ballard
6 N.C. 186
N.C.1812Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.