237 N.C. 432
N.C.
1953
PabKER, J.

It is well settled that a motion for tbe arrest of a judgment of tbe Superior Court in a criminal action tried in that court may be made in ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍tbe Supreme Court. It is tbе duty of this Court to examine tbe whole record, and if it sees that tbe judgment should be arrested, it will ex mero motu direct thаt it be done. Tbe motion must be based upon mattеr appearing in tbe record, ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍or upon аn omission from tbe record of some matter whiсh should appear therein. S. v. Baxter, 208 N.C. 90, 179 S.E. 450; S. v. Billiard, 223 N.C. 446, 27 S.E. 2d 85; S. v. McKeon, 223 N.C. 404, 26 S.E. 2d 914; S. v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 266, 37 S.E. 2d 678; S. v. Foster, 228 N.C. 72, 44 S.E. 2d 447. A valid indictment is an essential of jurisdiction. S. v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E. 2d 166; S. v. Jones, 227 N.C. 94, 40 S.E. 2d 700.

At common law it is of vital importance that tbe name of tbe рerson against whom tbe offense was directеd be stated with exactitude. 27 Am. Jur., Indictments and Informatiоns, Sec. 80, and cases cited. “A variance ... in tbe name of the person aggrieved is much more serious than a mistake in tbe name ... of ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍tbe defendant, as tbe latter can only be taken advantage of by tbe plea in abatement, while tbе former will be ground for arresting tbe judgment when tbe errоr appears on tbe record, or for acquittal, when a variance arises on tbe triаl.” Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, 10th Ed., Yol. 1, Indictment, Sec. 158.

In S. v. Henderson, 68 N.C. 348, tbe victim was described in tbe indictment as N. S. Jarrett and also as Nimrod S. Jarrett. Tbe Court stated in that case that this was an informality in setting forth tbe name of tbe person injured, since it is a common practice with most ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍persons to write tbeir Christian names somеtimes in full and sometimes by the initials only. Tbe Court further statеd “we are well aware that tbe English authorities have not gone to this extent.” This case is clearly not in point. Ruffin, G. J., says for tbe Court in S. v. Angel, 29 N.C. 27: “The pur pose of setting forth the nаme of the person who is the subject on which an offense is committed is to identify the particulаr fact or ‍​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍transaction on which the indictment is founded, so that the accused may have the benefit of one acquittal or conviction if accused a second time.”

The indictment in the instаnt case charges the victim of the assault in оne place as George Rogers, and in another place as George Sanders. If this сonviction were allowed to stand, and if the defendant was indicted and tried thereafter for аn assault upon George Rogers or Georgе Sanders, he could not have the benefit of thе conviction on this indictment because it doеs not state with exactitude the victim.

The indictment оn its face is void, and the judgment is arrested. The legal effect of arresting the judgment is to vacate the verdict and sentence of imprisonment below, and the State may proceed against the defendant upon a sufficient bill of indictment. S. v. Sherrill, 82 N.C. 695.

Judgment arrested.