{
  "id": 1961010,
  "name": "STATE v. LAUGHLIN, a slave",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Laughlin",
  "decision_date": "1862-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "455",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "8 Jones 455"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 N.C. 455"
    }
  ],
  "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": "7 Will. 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Will.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 449,
    "char_count": 7889,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.39,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.767998294065762e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36048472324062136
    },
    "sha256": "0592b39ca56e92baedc1f50c8eae79b9d751b76ff02b92e6a6d2d470a970344d",
    "simhash": "1:16906822505f2d80",
    "word_count": 1410
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:05:38.635812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. LAUGHLIN, a slave."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\n\"When this ease was before the- Court at June-Term, 1861, one of the questions presented was, whether a building, properly called a barn, was the same with one properly called a crib, and it was decided that it was not, and that, therefore, an indictment for arson, in burning a barn, with grain in it, could not be supported by proof that the building burnt, was a crib with grain in it \u2022 Upon tbe new trial, which took place in consequence of that decision, a special verdict was rendered, in which the building was particularly and minutely described, and it was submitted to the Court to decide whether it was a bam or not, within the meaning of the statute. So, that upon the present appeal, that is the only question presented to us.\nArson, at common law, is defined by Lord Coke to be \u201c the malicious and voluntary burning the house of another by night or by day.\u201d See 1 Hale\u2019s P. O. 566.\nThe house burnt, in order to be a felony, must be a dwelling-house, including, however, all outhouses that were parcel thereof, though not contiguous to it or under the same roof, as, for instance, the barn, stable, cow-house, sheep-house, dairy-house and mill-house, or if the house were not parcel of the dwelling, it must have been a barn, having hay or corn in it; Ibid. 567. In England, the offense of burning houses and other property, is now provided for by various statutes, among which, the most prominent are, 7 Will. 4 and 1 Yict. ,chap. 89, sec. 3, which -re-enacts, with some variations, the 7th and 8th George 4th, chap. 30, sec. 2. This statute makes it a felony to burn or set fire to \u201c any house, stable, coach-house, out-house, ware-house, office, shop, mill, malt-house, hopoast, barn or granary,\u201d &c. In this State, also, the offense \u25a0of arson depends mainly, if not altogether, upon the statute law. Thus,'by the 2nd section, chapter 34, of the Revised Code, it is' made a capital felony to burn, wilfully, \u201c any dwelling-house, or any part thereof, or any barn, then having grain \u25a0or corn in the same, or store, or ware-house, grist or saw-mill-house, or any building erected for the purpose of manufacturing any article whatever; and by the 7th and 30th sections, other provisions are made for the protection from burning of the State house, and other public houses, and houses belonging to any incorporate town or company, in the State. It will be seen that our statute does not mention .several of the kinds of houses embraced in that of Great Britain; as for instance, out-houses, stables, coach-houses, offices, granaries, and some others. In the construction of the English statutes, it is settled that it must be proved, on the part of the prosecution, that the house, burnt, comes within the meaning of the statute, and of the description given in the indictments, and as the statutes are highly penal, the construction of them, in these particulars, is very strict. For cases on the subject, see Boscoe\u2019s Crim. Ev. p. 276, et seq. Our statute, upon which the indictment, in the present case, is founded, is as highly penal as any known to our law, and must, therefore, receive a construction which will prevent the possibility of the prisoner\u2019s losing his life for an offense not within the contemplation of the Legislature. He is charged with burning a barn, and the special verdict finds that he burnt a house of the description therein particularly set forth. If such a house be a barn, he is guilty; if not, he is not guilty. In Webster\u2019s Dictionary, a \u201c barn\u201d is said to be \u201c a covered building for securing grain, hay, flax and other productions of the earth.\u201d Bouvier, in his Law Dictionary, defines it to be \u201c a building on a farm, $sed to receive the crop, the stabling of animals, and other purposes.\u201d The house described, in the special verdict, certainly does not come within the meaning of either of these definitions; but it does come within the meaning of a crib, which, according to Webster, is a term, used in the United States, to signify \u201c a small building, raised on posts, for storing Indian corn,\u201d or a granary, which, according to .same authority, is \u201c a store-house or repository of grain, after it is threshed ; a corn-house.\u201d We have seen that in the English statute, above referred to, a granary is mentioned as a different house from that of a barn, and we believe that in many parts of this State, and perhaps in the greater part of it, there is a well-known distinction between a barn and a granary or a crib, corresponding in the main with the above definitions. Many of the wealthy planters have both kinds of houses, while most of the farmers, in moderate circumstances, have only one.\nOur conclusion is, that the building, as described in the the special verdict, was not a barn within the meaning of the statute ;x and that not being a barn in itself, it was not made so by having been used for keeping the refuse Indian corn, and for storing peas, oats and other produce of the farm-. The statute requires that the house shall be a barn, and shall, besides, have corn or grain in it, to make the burning of it a capital felony.\nThe judgment in favor of the prisoner, upon the special verdict, must be affirmed, and it must be so certified to the Court below.\nPer Curiam,\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J. Per Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General and Wmston, Sr., for the State..",
      "Shepherd, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. LAUGHLIN, a slave.\nk. house seventeen feet long and. twelve wide, setting on blocks in a stable yard, having two rooms in it \u2014 one quite small, used for storing nubbins and refuse-corn to be first fed to the stock, and the other used for storing peas, oats and other products of the farm, is not a barn within the meaning of the statute, Rev. Code, chap. 34, sec. 2, the burning of which is made a felony.\nIndictment for arson, tried before Howard, J., at the Pall' Term, 1861, of Eobeson Superior Court.\nThe indictment charged the defendant with burning a barn, then having corn in the same. The jury found a special verdict as follows, to wit: \u201c That the prisoner did burn, as charged in the bill of indictment, a house, sitting on blocks, built of logs and roofed in, with good floor, and door fastened with padlock, seventeen feet long by twelve feet wide, with two rooms, one- about three times as large as the- other \u2014 the-small room used for storing the nubbins or refuse- corn, to be first fed away to the stock, and at the time of the fire, containing five or six bushels; the other used for storing the peas, oats or other products of the farm, and containing, at the time of the fire, twenty or thirty bushels of peas, some fodder and other things; the said house being situate in the stable lot, twenty-seven feet from the stable, with two similarly built houses in the same lot, just back of it \u2014 one smaller, used in storing the good corn raised on the farm, and the other, the-seed cotton, and say, if the Court should be of opinion that the said house was a- barn, then they find the prisoner guilty of the arson and felony as charged, otherwise not guilty.\u201d\nThe Court remarked, in giving his judgment in the case,. \u201c the statute is highly penal and must be strictly construed; the purpose of the act was to preserve the crops of corn and grain; the house must be a barn, used in part for storing corn- or grain, and must have therein, at the burning, the corn or grain, for the storing of which it is used. Peas are not grain. Did the fact, then, that the refuse corn was placed therein, to be first fed to the stock, make it a barn for storing- corn-. The witnesses speak cf it \u2014 some as a barn, others, a waste-house. The statute being highly penal, the punishment the severest known to our law, the Court holds that it is not clearly within the purview of the act. It is, therefore, adjudged that the-prisoner be released:\u201d from which judgment the solicitor prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted;.\nAttorney General and Wmston, Sr., for the State..\nShepherd, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0455-01",
  "first_page_order": 463,
  "last_page_order": 467
}