{
  "id": 8683695,
  "name": "STATE vs. MONTREVILLE PATTON AND OTHERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Patton",
  "decision_date": "1843-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "16",
  "last_page": "19",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Ired. 16"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. 16"
    }
  ],
  "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": "3 Ired. 411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694533
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/25/0411-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Hawks 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        8681590
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/11/0194-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Dev. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276559
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/15/0345-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Dev. &, Bat. 451",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. & Bat.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276246
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/19/0451-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Chit. Crim. Law. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Chit. Cr. Law",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Chit. Crim. Law 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Chit. Cr. Law",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 365,
    "char_count": 6485,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1161299701719236e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5722544055657299
    },
    "sha256": "3b1487e97b1ece60ee66d949ae78709cab39b19f6ec3b8e4ffaca34ffb381480",
    "simhash": "1:078156618c368699",
    "word_count": 1144
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:59.151638+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. MONTREVILLE PATTON AND OTHERS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, j.\nThe defendants are charged in the indictment; that they, being the President and Directors of that part of the public Buncombe Turnpike road, leading from the Tennessee line to the South Carolina line, which lies between Big Mud creek and the South Carolina line, in the county o\u00ed Henderson, did negligently permit the said public road, of which they were President and Directors, in the county aforesaid, to become ruinous, &c. against the form of the statute,-&c.\nThere is a statute (2 Rev. Stat. p. 418) incorporating a company under the name and style of the \u201c Buncombe Turnpike Company,\u201d for the purpose of making a turnpike road from the'Saluda Gap to the Tennessee line. The 9th section o\u00ed the act declares, that the road shall be a public highway. The 13th section directs, that all hands liable to work on roads, residing within two miles on either side of the said turnpike road, shall be liable to do six days work, in each and every year, on the said turnpike road, under the direction of the President and Directors of the said Company ; and the hands as aforesaid, when warned to work on the said road, shall be liable to the same fines and penalties for neglect, as persons failing to work on public roads in this States We think it was the duty of the Buncombe Turnpike Company to keep up the road, and that therefore the corporation is liable to an indictment, if the road be suffered to become ruinous. Any default in those bound to repair public highways, may be redressed by criminal prosecution. 3 Chit. Crim. Law 566. Hawkins\u2019P. C. B. 1.ch. 76, s. 1. We also think that the individuals, who haye been indict.ed, were bound, by virtue of their offices, faithfully to exert all their powers and apply all their means, as such officers, to the keeping of the road in order; and that for a default in this public duty they were liable to indictment. But as they were not absolutely bound to keep up the road, they cannot be charged, merely because the road has become ruinous. Besides, if they were so liable, the indictment ought to have shewn how that liability was thrown upon them. In England we see; that, where a public Statute changes the common law duty of the parish to a particular class of persons to keep in repair a public highway where that particular class of persons are indicted for neglect of duty, the indictment contains an averment, that it was i: their duty and of right they ought to have kept the said road in repair, &c.\u201d 3 Chit. Crim. Law. 584. Note C. There is no such averment in the present indictment.\nWe are of opinion that the judgment must be arrested.\nPer Curiam, Judgment' arrested-",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, j."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T/te Attorney General, for the State,",
      "a&lex under and John H. Bryan insisted,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. MONTREVILLE PATTON AND OTHERS.\nThe Buncombe Turnpike Company are bound by their charter to keep their road in good repair, and are indictable if the road is suffered to become ruinous.\nThe President and Directors of the Company are bound to exert all their powers and apply all their means, as such officers, to the keeping of the road in order; and, for a default in the performance of this public duty, are, .liable to indictment.\nWhere a particular class of persons, other than the public overseers of roads are indicted for not keeping a road in order, the indictment should contain an averment, \u201c that it was their duty and of right they ought to have kept the said road in repair;\u201d otherwise, judgment will he arrested.\nAppeal by the defendants from the Superior Court of Law of Henderson county, at Fall Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Dick presiding, '\nThe defendants were tried upon the following indictment to wit:\n\u201cState of North Carolina, ) Superior Court of Law, Henderson county. \\ ss' Fall Term, 1843;\n\u201c The jurors for the State upon their oath present that Mont. Patton, President, and James W. Patton and Wm. W. Davie, Directors of the Buncombe Turnpike Road, lately of the county of Henderson, on the first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, and for a long time both before and since that day, to wit, for six months, being President and Directors of that part of the public Buncombe Turnpike Road, leading from the Tennessee line by Asheville and Hendersonville to the South Carolina line, which lies between Big Mud creek and the South Carolina line, in the county aforesaid, negligently did permit the said public road, of which they were President and Directors as aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, to become ruinous, miry, broken and in great decay for want of due reparation thereof, and the same so to be and remain during all the time aforesaid negligently did permit and still do permit, to the great damage and common nuisance of all the'citizens of the State and others the same road passing, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nThe defendants pleaded not guilty. On the trial, the State proved the road to be out of proper order, and it remained so fora considerable time. The defendants\u2019 counsel contended that the President and Directors were not liable to indictment for suffering their road to be out of repair \u2014 that they were only amenable to the Legislature for any omission of the duties imposed on them by their charter, and prayed the court so to instruct the jury. The court declined to give the instruction prayed for, blit charged the jury, that the defendants were subject to indictment, and, if they believed the evidence, the defendants were guilty as charged. The jury found the defendants guilty, and, a new trial having been moved for and refused, they appealed.\nT/te Attorney General, for the State,\ncontended that the President and Directors were indictable, and that the indictment well laid the offence ; and cited Raleigh and Gaston Maad vs. Davis, 2 Dev. &, Bat. 451, and 2 Rev. Stat. pages 423, 424. He also commented on the case of The State vs. Commissioners of Halifax, 4 Dev. 345.\na&lex under and John H. Bryan insisted,\nin arrest of judgment, that it did not appear irom the indictment, being no where alleged therein, that it was the duty of the President and Directors to repair the road; and, 2diy, that it should have been charged in the indictment, to make them responsible, that they neglected to levy tolls or call out the hands, as authorised by law, for the purpose of keeping the road in repair. They cited The State vs. The Justices of Lenoir, 4 Hawks 194; State vs. Commiss\u2019rs of Halifax, 4 Dev. 345 ; and State vs. King, 3 Ired. 411."
  },
  "file_name": "0016-01",
  "first_page_order": 16,
  "last_page_order": 19
}