{ "id": 8663877, "name": "STATE v. ZEB. HUSKINS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Huskins", "decision_date": "1900-04-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "1070", "last_page": "1072", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "126 N.C. 1070" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "109 N. C., 798", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651657 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/109/0798-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 263, "char_count": 4486, "ocr_confidence": 0.375, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20770960005776398 }, "sha256": "3d32647c398f2d5862475cdb73feffac55e05d1ea645e1c121e6edcec75c8311", "simhash": "1:df47397724f857f1", "word_count": 802 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:28.883277+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. ZEB. HUSKINS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Furches, J.\nThis is an indictment for burning eight stacks of oats, three stacks of straw and three stacks of fodder, the property of one Chapman. The defendant was indicted under sec. 985 (5), of The Code, and upon conviction moved in arrest of judgment.\nThe grounds upon which this motion was made are not stated in the record', but, upon the argument in this Court, it was put upon the ground that indictment failed to state that tbe property destroyed was \u201cout of doors.\u201d The statute provides that when \u201cany person who shall wilfully burn or destroy any other person\u2019s corn, cotton, wheat, barley, rye, outs, buckwheat, rice, tobacco, hay, straw, fodder, shucks, or other provender, m stacks, hills, rick or pen, or secured in any other way, out of doors, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,\u201d etc.\nIt seems to- us that by the exercise of common sense, applied to experience and observation, we are taught that such things as oats, straw and fodder are not stacked in doors. They are often stored a/way in barns and other houses, but not stacked in them \u2014 stacking of such crops as these is generally for the want of room to store them in doors. But if it be contended that the eight stacks of oats, three, stacks of straw and the three stacks of fodder were stacked \u201cin doors\u201d it would not have been proper to charge them as being \u201cout of doors,\u201d and the defendant\u2019s motion to quash would have been groundless. We introduce this argument to show, as we think, the fallacy of the defendant\u2019s motion, and not because we have any idea that they were stacked \u201cin doors.\u201d\nBut the statute, makes it a misdemeanor to burn the stacks of another person, whether in doors or \u201cout of doors,\u201d as we think, or to burn any of these crops secured in any other way \u201cout of doors.\u201d It seems to us that the Legislature, knowing something of the way farmers take care of such crops as oats, straw and fodder, took it for granted, if they were stacked, the stacks would be out of doors. But as they might be secured in other ways than by stacking, the legislature provided that if this is done \u201cby other means out of doors\u201d (than by stacking) that burning them thus secured shall be a misdemeanor.\nBut the burning of such stacks is made a misdemeanor, a complete offense, whether in doors, or \u201cout of doors.\u201d They are specifically named.\nIt is something like murder in the first degree under the statute of 1893 : That where the killing is committed in any of the specified ways, as by poisoning, etc., it is not necessary to prove deliberation or premeditation. This is only necessary to' be shown where the killing has been done in some other way than those specially named. So> here, the burning of the stacks of oats, stra.w and fodder is a complete offense without showing anything more. But if the oats, straw and fodder are secured in some other way than in stacks \u201cout of doors,\u201d then it is the.same offense to bum them that it would have been if they had been stacked.\nThe defendant cited and relied on State v. Avery, 109 N. C., 798. And while that is an indictment under the same statute for burning cotton in bales in a railroad car, and some of the arguments used in discussing that case are the same as those used by defendant\u2019s counsel in arguing this case, still, we do not think tire opinion in that case controls the argument in this. We think it was not necessary to state that the oat stacks, the straw stacks and the fodder stacks were \u201cout of doors.\u201d And as this was the only question involved in tire appeal, the judgment must be\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Furches, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. S. J. Ervin, for appellant.", "Mr. Attorney-General, for State." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. ZEB. HUSKINS.\n(Decided April 17, 1900.)\nBurning Stacks of Oats, Straw and Fodder \u2014 The Code, Section 985 (5) \u2014 Motion in Arrest of Judgment.\nA motion in arrest of judgment, because the indictment did not conform to the statute under which it was brought, by averring that the stacks burned were \u201cout of doors,\u201d Code, sec. 985 (5) was properly overruled.\nINDICTMENT for burning eight stacks of oats, three stacks of straw and three stacks of fodder, tried before Allen, J., at Eall Term, 1899, of Mitchell Superior Court. After conviction the defendant moved in arrest of judgment because the indictment did not allege that the stacks were \u201cout of doors\" \u2014 pursuant to the statute upon which the indictment was founded (Code, sec. 985 (5). His Honor overruled the motion, and rendered judgment, from which the defendant appealed.\nThe statute is quoted in the opinion.\nMr. S. J. Ervin, for appellant.\nMr. Attorney-General, for State." }, "file_name": "1070-01", "first_page_order": 1110, "last_page_order": 1112 }