{ "id": 8662532, "name": "STATE v. MAY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. May", "decision_date": "1903-04-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "1020", "last_page": "1022", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "132 N.C. 1020" } ], "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": "65 N. C., 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1955311 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/65/0450-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 N. C., 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274701 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/130/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 779", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656138 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/119/0779-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 673", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653841 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N. C., 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275057 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/95/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N. C., 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8695614 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/80/0403-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 N. C., 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2088640 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/52/0024-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 267, "char_count": 3588, "ocr_confidence": 0.501, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.214451344796103e-07, "percentile": 0.9406561926969488 }, "sha256": "8788a67b087fde1a5f34d937fb4861f33dcaa43f9d01d38ff19be1a4d4ddd308", "simhash": "1:61c9355523a240c6", "word_count": 626 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:22:40.266480+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. MAY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Douglas, J.\nThe defendant was indicted under Section 970 of The Code for abandonment, in the following words: \u201cThe jurors for the State upon their oaths present that Frank May, late of said County of Guilford, on the .... day of January, 1902, at and in the county aforesaid, unlawfully and wilfully did abandon bis wife, one Mary May, and the children which be, the said Frank May, upon the body of bis said wife bad theretofore begotten, contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nThere was a second count in the bill of indictment charging the defendant under Section 972 of The Code, with neglecting and refusing to provide adequate support for his wife and children while living with them; but it is evident from the record that the defendant was tried on the first count alone. As far as we can see, the entire evidence, the judge\u2019s charge and the argument of counsel referred only to that count, and we must therefore presume that the verdict followed the trial. State v. Long, 52 N. C., 24; State v. Leak, 80 N. C., 403; State v. Thompson, 95 N. C., 596; State v. Gilchrist, 113 N. C., 673.\nSection 970 of The Code is as follows: \u201cIf any husband shall wilfully abandon bis wife without providing adequate support for such wife, and the children which be may have begotten upon her, be shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.\u201d This action was amended by Chapter 504 of the Laws of 1889 by bringing the offense within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, but this amendment. was subsequently repealed by Chapter 83 of the Laws of 1893. State v. Woolard, 119 N. C., 779.\nA comparison of the indictment with the section of The Code under which it was drawn shows a fatal defect, inasmuch as it charges a simple abandonment without, a failure to support. In legal effect, it charges no offense whatever because it fails to charge the acts necessary to constitute an offense. State v. Hopkins, 130 N. C., 647. The first count can not be aided by reference to the second count. It is settled that \u201ca count in a bill of indictment must be complete in itself, and contain all the material allegations which constitute the offense charged.\u201d State v. Phelps, 65 N. C., 450.\nWhat we have already said is sufficient for the determination of the case at bar, and hence it becomes unnecessary for us to consider the remaining exceptions. We 'do not wish, however, to be considered as overruling them, as at least one of them might give us serious trouble were it essential to this appeal. The judgment of the court below is\nArrested.", "type": "majority", "author": "Douglas, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.", "John A. Barringer, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. MAY.\n(Filed April 7, 1903.)\n1. ABANDONMENT \u2014 Husband and Wife \u2014 Failure to Support \u2014 -Indictment \u2014 The Code, Secs. 970 and 972 \u2014 Acts 1889, Oh. 504 \u2014 Acts 1899, Ch. 88.\nAn indictment against a husband for abandoning his wife must aver his failure to support her.\n3. VERDICT \u2014 Indictment\u2014Counts\u2014Evidence \u2014 Instructions \u2014 Argument of Oounsel \u2014 Trial\u2014Presumptions.\nWhere an indictment contains two counts, but the evidence, instructions of the trial judge and the argument of counsel refer to one count only, it will be presumed that the verdict followed the trial and related to such count.\n3. INDICTMENT\u2014 Counts.\nA defective count in an indictment cannot be aided by reference to another count.\nINDICTMENT against Erank May, heard by Judge Walter H. Neal and a jury, at June Term, 1902, of the Superior Court of GruiLEORD County. From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.\nRobert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nJohn A. Barringer, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "1020-01", "first_page_order": 1070, "last_page_order": 1072 }