State v. . Neal

Sep 5, 1891
Reporters:
,
Before:
Shepherd
Shepherd, J.:

The warrant simply charges that the defendant “ wilfully refused to attend and work ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‍on the public road after being lawfully warned, contrary to the form of the statute,” etc.

*860 There is nothing to negative the payment of one dollar ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‍in discharge of the defendant’s liability to perforin the labor required of him. No amendment was asked at any stage of the trial, either before ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‍or after verdict, and upon conviction the defendant moved in arrest of judgment.

It is expressly decided that the motion should have-been allowed. State v. Pool, 106 N. C., ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‍698 ; State v. Baker, 106 N. C., 758. The insufficiency of the warrant was not, we presume, called to the attention of his ITonor, the argument before him being ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‍addressed to the constitutionality of the act under which the defendant was prosecuted.

Error.