A. dеed for land, duly proved and registered, passes the land by the express words of the Act of 1715 ; and it is necessarily evidence to that purpose upon every occasion on which it may be offered. For the purposes of this trial, ihdeed, it would only hаve been necessary to show, that the deceased professed to have a deed for the prisoner’s land, and it would be immaterial whether it was genuine or not. But here it was prima facie genuine, and therefore was, at all events, properly received.
The Court has had some doubt of the sufficiency of the indictment, by reason of the false spelling of the day of the month. But, after сonsideration, we think ourselves obliged to let the sentence stand. We are inclined to the opinion that the indictment is goоd at common law, because, although the word “ tweflth,” is spelt wrong, by transposing the letter
f,
and placing it before, instead of after
l,
yet it is impossible to mistake the meaning. The false spelling makes no other word, that could mislead. But at all events, the Act of 1811,
Rev. Stat. Ch.
35,
Sec.
12, cures the defect, if it be one. That makеs the indictment sufficient if it “contain the charge expressed in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner and forbids it “to be quashed or judgment arrested for or by reason of any informality or refinement, where there appears to the Court sufficient, in the face of the indictment, to induce them to proceed to judgment.” It would certainly be much more satisfactory to the Court, if the Aсt had specified the omissions or defects, which in the opinion of the Legislature ought not to invalidate the indictment; as has bеen done in England, by an Act on the same subject, that of 7 and 8
Geo.
4
C.
64. Among other things, that provides that no judgment shall be stayed or reversed for want of the averment of any matter unnecessary to be proved, nor for omitting to state the time at which the offence was committed in any case, when
*198
time is not of the essence of the offence, nor for stating the time imperfectly. At cоmmon law, it was indispensable, that the indictment should fix some certain day at which every material fact constituting a crime oсcurred. But, although that was the form of the indictment, yet the authorities fully show, it was only material that the time laid should be before the bill found; for, whatever time was laid, it was sufficient to prove on the trial that the offence was committed before the prosecution commenced — unless in those cases in which, the time enters into the oiien.ee, and of course, must enter into the description of it — as when an act is made criminal if done in the night, or between such and such days of the year, or the like. In respect to murder, the time is material in one respect, and but in one ; which is, that it must appear on the bill, that the day of the death, as laid, is within a year and a day from that of the wounding-. For, if it bo not so laid, the indictment does not charge murder, as the law attributes the death, not happening within a year and day, to some other cause than the Wounding. The present indictment is sufficient in that pespeqt; for, upon the supposition that there is no day of fhe month laid, it lays the time of the felonious assault and stabbing to he in August IS 16, and thаt Flowers “then and there instantly died1’ thereof. The whole therefore occurred before the bill found, which was in the latter end оf September or first of October following. The question then is, whether the Act of 1811 will support an indictment, which fails to lay a certain
day
as that of committing the crime, but plainly charges it to have been done in a certain month before the bill found, The Court is of оpinion, that in order tq give effect to the clear purpose of the Legislature, and advance the policy of thе Act, it must receive that construction. The indictment is perfectly plain, and intelligible as it is ; for wc sec clearly, that the crimе of murder is charged, and
*199
that, as charged, it was perpetrated before the bill was found. We know not what defect can come within the terms “ informality or refinement,” if the omission of the particular day of the offence committed do not; since, if it hаd been inserted, its only office would be to show
a
time before the finding of the indictment, and the proof might be of any other day, prоvided only, it also be before the finding of the bill. It has been heretofore held, under the Act, that the indictment need not ebarge any matter which need not be proved on the tidal.
State
v.
Moses,
2 Dev 452.
State
v.
Green,
We probably do not perceive the point of thе objection to the order of removal. It has occurred to us, that possibly it was founded on the language of the order bеing different from that of the statute in this : that the order is, “that the trial of the prosecution be removed,” whereas the language of the Act is, that the Court shall order “a copy of the record of said cause to be removed to some adjacent County for trial.” But in substance, the Act is, *200 that the place of trial is changed; and the other part of the enactment is merely directory as to the document on which the trial is to proceed, namely, on a transcript instead of the original record. Upon the whole order, it apрears, that the prisoner and the cause were removed, for trial in the Superior Court of Law of Columbus County; and it is seen in the record from Columbus, (which is that before us,) that a transcript from Robeson Superior Court was afterwards filed in the Court of Columbus, and the prisoner tried and convicted on it. Those things certainly shew a full compliance with the law.
The Court therefore perceives no error in the judgment.
Per Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly