{
  "id": 8686720,
  "name": "The State v. Hiram Carland",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Carland",
  "decision_date": "1831-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "114",
  "last_page": "115",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. 114"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. 114"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3308,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.327,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.822794275480334e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9516023907185323
    },
    "sha256": "d3a0698f7bbb3c3bc7f8ebb51082c3b9aaf5e8c1942de1ee2172208e73afefc2",
    "simhash": "1:d37371be7df28cc3",
    "word_count": 557
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:15.653835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The State v. Hiram Carland."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ilus'it'iN, Judge\nThe counsel for the defendant, admitting the insufficiency of the objections, stated in the record, as having been taken on the trial in the Superior Court, move here in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the indictment docs not charge that the defendant sxvore wilfully and corruptly.\nUnder the statute, it is clear the objection is a good one. It seems to be equally so at common law. In our search for precedents, not one has been found, except that in Cox* case (Leach 69) in which those epithets are .not both applied to the act of swearing. They enter into the definition of perjury at common law. And whatever evil intent may be alleged in the indictment as moving the defendant to take the false oath, the very i aking of it must be stated to have been done deliberately, and with a wicked purpose, at that moment existing. This has been expressed, by applying those terms wilful and corrupt to the act of swearing. Cox\u2019 case established, that one of them might be supplied by maliciously. That has been doubted, and never followed; though I suppose it would be in a case precisely in point. But in no instance hath the omission of both been allowed, though falsely and maliciously were used. And in a very late case, in the King\u2019s Bench, in 1826 (Rex v. Stephens) this very point came directly before the court; when the indictment was held bad on a motion in arrest of judgment. This is of the more authority, because the statute 23 George II. c. 11, provides in that country for simplifying indictments for perjury ; as our own does here.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment arpe stub,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ilus'it'iN, Judge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hogg & Badger, for the defendant,",
      "The Attorney -General, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The State v. Hiram Carland.\nAh indictment for pei-jury charging, that the defendant \u201cbeing-a wicked and evil person, and unlawfully and unjustly contriving-, &c. deposed &c.\u201d and concluding-thatthe defendant, \u201c of his wicked and corrupt mind, did oommit wilful and corrupt perjury,\u201d is defective even at common law, for not alleging- that the defendant wilfully and. car-rujiily swore falsely.\nThe defendant, was convicted, on the last circuit, at Buncombe, before Martin, Judge, upon an indictment for perjury. A motion for a new trial was made in the-court below, but as that motion ivas not pressed in this court, it is unnecessary to state the case-sent np with the record.\nThe indictment, after stating the suit, in which the perjury was charged to have been committed \u2014 proceeded as follows: \u201cAnd the jurors aforesaid, upontheix* \u201c oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Hiram \u201c Garland, being a wicked and evil disposed person, and \u00ed* unlawfully and unjustly contriving and intending, cont( trary to truth and justice,' to, &c.\u201d [Setting out the several matters sworn with averments contradicting them] and concluded in these words: \u201cAnd so the jurors \u201c aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that the \u25a0\u201c said Hiram Garland, of his own most wicked and cor- \u201c rupt mind and disposition, did commit wilful and cor- \u201c rupt perjury, to, See.\u201d\nHogg & Badger, for the defendant,\nmoved in arrest'of judgment, because the indictment did not charge, that the defendant wilfully and corruptly swore falsely. They argued this point at considerable length, and relied much upon the case of Ilex y. Stephens (5 Barn. & Cress. 246-) S. C. (11 E. C. L. 216).\nThe Attorney -General, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0114-01",
  "first_page_order": 120,
  "last_page_order": 121
}