State v. Gibbs
66 S.E.2d 883
N.C.
1951
Check Treatment
JOHNSON, J.

The purpose of Chapter 539 of Public-Local Laws of 1933, as shown by its title, is to protect hunting and fishing and timber reservations in Yancey County, and the Act provides: “that it shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon any hunting and fishing or timber reservation in Yancey County, without a written permission from the owner . . .”

The properties protected by the Act are “reservations.” The word reservation as applied to a description of land has a definite, specific meaning. It is defined in Webster as “a tract of public land reserved for some special use, as for schools, for forests, for the use of the Indians, etc.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 2d Ed., p. 1026, “In public land laws of the United States, a reservation is a tract of land, more or less considerable in extent, which is by public authority withdrawn from sale or settlement, and appropriated to specific public uses; such as parks, military posts, Indian lands, etc.”

The essential elements of the crime created by the Public-Local Act under which the bill of indictment was drawn are (1) entry (2) upon a hunting and fishing or timber reservation in Yancey County (3) without a written permission from the owner.

The bill of indictment does not charge that the defendant entered upon any hunting and fishing or timber reservation. This omission renders the bill fatally defective. S. v. Miller, 231 N.C. 419, 57 S.E. 2d 392; S. v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E. 2d 166; S. v. Jachson, 218 N.C. 373, 11 S.E. 2d 149; S. v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 132 S.E. 795.

Decision here would seem to be controlled by the rule stated in S. v. Morgan, supra (226 N.C. 414, p. 415) : “It is a universal rule that no indictment, whether at common law or under a statute, can be good if it *261 does not accurately and clearly allege all tbe constituent elements of tbe offense charged.”

Also in point is tbe following observation of Adams, J., in S. v. Ballangee, supra (191 N.C. 700, pp. 701 and 702) : “Tbe breach of a statutory offense must be so laid in tbe indictment as to bring tbe case within tbe description given in tbe statute and inform tbe accused of tbe elements of tbe offense. . . . Merely charging in general terms a breach of tbe statute and referring to it in the indictment is not sufficient.”

“Tbe bill need not be in tbe exact language of tbe statute, but it must contain averments of all tbe essential elements of tbe crime created by tbe act.” S. v. Miller, supra (231 N.C. 419, p. 420).

In S. v. Jackson, supra (218 N.C. 373), Justice Barnhill succinctly states tbe formula this way: “An indictment for an offense created by statute must be framed upon tbe statute, and this fact must distinctly appear upon tbe face of the indictment itself; and in order that it shall so appear, tbe bill must either charge tbe offense in tbe language of tbe act, or specifically set forth tbe facts constituting tbe same. . . . 'Where tbe words of a statute are descriptive of tbe offense, an indictment should follow tbe language and expressly charge tbe described offense on tbe defendant so as to bring it within all tbe material words of tbe statute. Nothing can be taken by intendment. . . .’ ”

In tbe light of tbe foregoing authorities, it is manifest that tbe court below properly quashed tbe bill of indictment. Tbe decisions cited by tbe State seem to be distinguishable.

We have not overlooked G.S. 15-153, which provides that an indictment shall not be quashed by reason of a mere “informality or refinement.” This statute, however, does not dispense with tbe requirement that tbe essential elements of an offense must be charged, and many decisions of this Court have so held. See S. v. Tarlton, 208 N.C. 734, 182 S.E. 481, and cases cited; S. v. Cole, 202 N.C. 592, 163 S.E. 594, and cases cited and analyzed.

Nor have we overlooked G.S. 15-143, which provides that a bill of particulars may be ordered in tbe discretion of tbe court. Tbe function of a bill of particulars under tbe statute is to provide “further information not required to be set out” in tbe bill of indictment, but never to supply matter required to be charged as an essential ingredient of tbe offense. S. v. Cole, supra; S. v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769, 12 S.E. 2d 654.

For tbe reasons given, tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.