{
  "id": 11273060,
  "name": "STATE v. NEILL BRITT and ILA DAVIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Britt",
  "decision_date": "1909-03-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "811",
  "last_page": "813",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 811"
    }
  ],
  "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": "10 Am. Dec., 473",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682630
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 N. C., 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2088646
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/52/0158-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 754",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698741
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0754-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N. C., 776",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651770
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/108/0776-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N. C., 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8689644
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/20/0113-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 303,
    "char_count": 4362,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23914811249613394
    },
    "sha256": "b2620fd671c2f4ab289b64f978b375f191c9ebf747c556cb7347c86c188e4072",
    "simhash": "1:0fc89818b174992b",
    "word_count": 717
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. NEILL BRITT and ILA DAVIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nTbe defendants were convicted of tbe misdemeanor denounced by tbe Revisal, see. 3350, commonly styled tbe offense \u2019of fornication and adultery. \u25a0 Motion in arrest of judgment for defect on tbe face of tbe bill w.as denied, and defendants appealed.\nTbe Revisal, sec. 3350, provides: \u201cIf any man and woman, not being married to eaeb other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.\u201d This indictment charges that \u201cNeill Britt, man, and Ila Davis, woman, not being married to each other, * * did unlawfully bed and cohabit together.\u201d This charges every essential element of the offense. It certainly gave the parties full notice of the crime for which they were tried, which is the sole object and office of the indictment. In State v. Jolly, 20 N. C., 113, Gaston, J. says: \u201cTo prevent future controversy, we deem it proper to say that, as we understand the law, the offense is sufficiently described by charging an unlawful \u2018bedding and cohabiting together.\u2019 \u201d That is conclusive of this case.\nThe Revisal, sec. 3254, provides that any warrant or indictment \u201cshall be sufficient in form for all intents and purposes if it express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible and explicit manner, and the same shall not be quashed nor tlie judgment thereon stayed by reason of any informality or refinement, if in the bill or proceeding sufficient matter appears to enable the court to proceed to judgment.\u201d The charge that two persons of opposite sex did \u201cunlawfully bed and cohabit together\u201d can convey but one signification. It has long been held that the words \u201clewdly and lasciviously\u201d are not necessary to be used. State v. Stubbs, 108 N. C., 776; State v. Lashley, 84 N. C., 754; State v. Lyerly, 52 N. C., 158; State v. Tally, 74 N. C., 322. In the last-named case Settle, J., says of the indictment: \u201cI believe it is a copy of an old and well-approved form, long in use by the solicitors of this State, yet it contains manifestly needless averments.\u201d In State v. Lashley, supra, Smith, C. J., held that failure to allege that the parties were of different sex and were not married was cured by inserting the word \u201cadulterously.\u201d\nThe word \u201cbed\u201d is here a verb and means to habitually go to bed with, i. e., habitual sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, discussing the meaning of these words, says: \u201cIn all times, in every age, and by all writers, sacred and profane, in the language of scripture and in the language of law, these words, except as between man and wife, signify and impute illicit intercourse, and with them it imports the rite of hallowed love.\u201d ' Walton v. Singleton, 10 Am. Dec., 473. So that, if the indictment had simply alleged that the defendants, not being married to each other, did habitually bed together, it would have charged the offense denounced by the statute.\nThe bill here charges,' \u201cdid unlawfully bed and cohabit together.\u201d What does \u201ccohabit\u201d mean when applied to persons of opposite sex? The Standard Dictionary says: \u201c(1) Law. To dwell together as man and wife, popularly, in the sense of having sexual intercourse.\u201d Anderson\u2019s Law'Dictionary: \u201cIn criminal statutes, to live together as husband and wife.\u201d The words \u201cbed and cohabit\u201d are the words chosen by the statute to express the charge of illicit intercourse.- From long use in criminal statutes they have been translated as the equivalent of \u201cfornication and adultery.\u201d But these latter words are not in the statute. The indictment follows the statute, omitting only redundant words. \u201cFornication and adultery\u201d may require some definition or explanation; \u201cbedding\u201d and \u201ccohabiting\u201d require none. The facts cannot be stated in stronger or clearer language.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General for the State.",
      "Wishart & Britt and McLean, McLean & Snow for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. NEILL BRITT and ILA DAVIS.\n(Filed 24 March, 1909.)\nIndictment, Bill of \u2014 Sufficiency\u2014Fornication and Adultery.\nA bill of indictment for fornication and adultery sufficiently alleges the offense, under the statute (Revisal, sec. 3350), when it charges that a certain man and woman, by name, \u201cdid unlawfully bed and cohabit together.\u201d (Revisal, sec. 3254.)\nINDICTMENT for fornication and adultery, tried before Biggs, J., and a jury, at December Term, 1908, of Robeson.\nDefendants appealed.\nAttorney-General for the State.\nWishart & Britt and McLean, McLean & Snow for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0811-01",
  "first_page_order": 855,
  "last_page_order": 857
}