{
  "id": 8697013,
  "name": "STATE vs. NOAH BELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bell",
  "decision_date": "1843-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "509",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Ired. 506"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. 506"
    }
  ],
  "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": "4 Dev. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Dev. Rep. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 344,
    "char_count": 5813,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.897308107330005e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9527439630650281
    },
    "sha256": "54e4b3dc7a98c150342f28c7c61dc760ec3ee1fe1ba722d48583a18d16e43129",
    "simhash": "1:9655c7704fd15c8d",
    "word_count": 994
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:56:07.564663+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. NOAH BELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, J.\nChapter 48, sec. 1, of the Revised Statutes declares, that every planter shall make a sufficient fence about his cleared ground under cultivation, at least five feet high, unless where there shall be some navigable stream or deep water course, that may be deemed sufficient, instead of a fence aforesaid. Chap. 34, sec. 42, of the same Revised Statutes declares \u201c that all persons neglecting to keep and repair their fences during crop time, required by an act concern-fences, passed at this present session, shall be liable to be in-dieted.\u201d The defendant was indicted for not keeping- up a sufficient fence, and the indictment concludes against the \u201cstatute.\u201d This conclusion in the singular number, we think, was right; because the said two chapters, which we admit must be'taken together to make up the body of-the of-fence, are but parts of one statute. The law, which was embraced in both these chapters, was passed in a constitutional form, at one and the same general Assembly, to wit, the session of 1836. All laws passed at one session of parliament were.anciently strung together, making so many cas-pieria, or chapters, of one statute. Dwarris on statutes, 2. All the acts of one session of parliament, taken together, make properly but one statute ; and therefore when two sessions have been held iu one year, we usually mention Stat. 1, or Stat. 2, of the particular year of the reign of the then King. 1 Black. Com. 85, 86. Before the session of 1836, the portions of the two above mentioned chapters were contained in too statutes; because they became the law by force of two acts, passed at different sessions of the Legislature. But since the acts have all been revised, and re-enacted in a constitutional manner at one session of the Legislature, they are now but one statute, and were so when the defendant committed the offence charged in this bill of indictment. It is said, however, that the Legislature did not intend, that all the old acts of Assembly, which were revised and re-enacted at the session of 1836, should be considered as one statute. We have no evidence that the Legislature intended otherwise : certainly it has not expressed a contrary intention ; and, therefore, the rule which has prevailed for ages must still be adhered to by us.\nSecondly, It is said by the defendant\u2019s counsel, that the offence, mentioned in the statute, is not described with sufficient certainty in this indictment. This objection is founded upon the indefiniteness of the phrase, \u201ccontinually before and after that time,\u201d but this phrase is modified by the subsequent words \u201cduring crop time,\u201d so as to bring the of-fence within the description in the 3dth chapter. It is further objected that in the 48th chapter the enactment applies only to planters, and that the indictment is defective in not having averred that the defendant was a planter; but to this, we think, it is properly replied that the 34th chapter applies the enactment to \u201c all\u201d persons neglecting to keep up their fences during crop time.\nIt is again objected, that the offence is not stated in the indictment to have been committed within the county of Edg-combe, where the defendant was tried. We think that the last of the words \u201cthen and there\u201d sufficiently refers to the county of Edgecombe, mentioned in the caption. State v May, 4 Dev. Rep. 328. All the objections which have been taken, are overruled, and this opinion will be certified, &c.\nPer Curiam. Ordered accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General for the State.",
      "B. F. Moore for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. NOAH BELL.\nJune 1843\nAll the acts passed at the same session of the Legislature are to be considered as but one statute.\n\u00edhorefore the Revised Statutes, passed at the session of the Legislature in 1836, constitute but one statute.\nAll persons, and not planters only, are subject to indictment for not keeping up good fences, as required by the 34th and 48th chapters of the Revised Statutes.\nWhere the county is mentioned in the caption, the last of the words \u201c then and there\u201d in the body of the indictment will be understood as referring to that county.\nThe case of State v May, 4 Dev. 338, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Edgecombe county, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Manly presiding.\nThe defendant was- tried and found guilty upon the following indictment, viz:\n\u201c State of North Carolina, ) Superior Court of Law Edgecombe County. \\ ss Fall Term, 1842.\nThe-jurors for the State upon their oath present, that Noah Bell, late of the county of Edgecombe and State said, on the first day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, (1842) and continually before and after that time, during the crop season of the year, then and there being the occupier and cultivator of a farm as owner of the same, and \u25a0 being bound during the said crop season to keep up his fences around his cultivated fields five feet high, unlawfully, wilfully and negligently did permit his said fences around nis said fields to be and remain during the crop season of the year aforesaid less than five feet high, there being no navigable stream nor deep water course around the same, to the common nuisance of the good people of the county and of the State then and there being, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u2019\u2019\nAfter conviction, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, upon these grounds : 1st. Because it was not sufficiently averred in the bill that the defendant was the cultivator of the field in question. 2ndly. Because the indictment concluded \u201cagainst the form of the statute\u201d and not11 statutes,\u201d as it ought to have done. The motion in arrest was overruled and judgment pronounced, from which the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General for the State.\nB. F. Moore for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 506,
  "last_page_order": 509
}