{
  "id": 1955311,
  "name": "THE STATE v. ANDERSON PHELPS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Phelps",
  "decision_date": "1871-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "450",
  "last_page": "452",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 N.C. 450"
    }
  ],
  "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": 292,
    "char_count": 4516,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.364,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.668198344461696e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8255529569484553
    },
    "sha256": "91d8b8a92c2d4367caeae210da3f4c1bf09f9a43daa8cdeca328a50a7adbba23",
    "simhash": "1:ee32147aa464f40c",
    "word_count": 776
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:56.423501+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. ANDERSON PHELPS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Dick, J.\nThe defendant was convicted only on the second \u25a0count in the indictment; and it is insisted on a motion in arrest \u25a0of judgment that said count is so defective, that the Court \u25a0 ought not to pronounce judgment.\nIt appears upon the face of the indictment, that the name of -the defendant is not mentioned in the commencement of the \u00abstatement of the offence, charging the receiving of the stolen goods; but, is subsequently introduced, that, \u201c He, the said Anderson Phelps, then and there, well knowing the said goods -and chattels to have been feloniously stolen,\u201d &c.\nA count in a bill of indictment, must be complete in itself, and contain all the material allegations which constitute the offence charged.\nThe general rules of pleading, as to the sufficiency of the in- \u25a0 dictment, are well stated in 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., sec. 411. \u201c The indictment must show on its face, that it has been found by competent authority, in accordance with the requirements of law; and that a particular person mentioned therein, has done within the jurisdiction of the indictors, such and such specific acts, at a specific time, which acts, so done, constitute what the Court can see, as a question of law, to be a crime.\u201d\nThe count under consideration, is not in accordance with the precedents, 3 Chit. C. L. 988; and is detective in not containing the name of the defendant in the proper place, and distinctly and positively charging him with receiving the stolen goods, &e.-\nThe defect is not cured by the statute, Rev. Code, ch. 35, sec. 14; as there is an omission of a material averment, constituting the crime charged.\nThere is error. The judgment is arrested, and this must be certified to the end that the defendant may be discharged.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dick, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Bailey, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. ANDERSON PHELPS.\nA count in an indictment must be complete in itself, and contain all the material allegations which constitute the offence charged. Therefore, a count charging defendant with receiving stolen goods, is defective, which does not contain the name of the defendant in the proper place, and distinctly charge him with receiving the stolen goods.\n'This defect is not cured by the statute, Rev. Code, chap. 85, sec. 14, and judgment will he arrested.\nIndictment for receiving stolen goods tried before Cloud, J., at Spring Term, 1871, of Rowan Superior Court.\nThe indictment contained two counts, one for larceny, the other for receiving stolen goods. The jury acquitted defendant on the first count, and convicted on the latter, a copy of \u25a0-which is as follows :\n\u201c And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do \u25a0further present that on the day and year aforesaid, in the \u2022County aforesaid, one box manufactured tobacco,, two bottles of whiskey, and five gallons of whiskey, of the value of twenty (dollars, of the goods, and chattels of \"William 13. March \"before then feloniously stolen, taken and earned away feloniously did receive and have, he the said Anderson Phelps, Green Phelps, and David Phelps, then and there well knowing the said goods and chattels to have been feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away, against the form of the statute in such case made, and provided, and against the peace, and dignity of the State.\u201d\nMotion in arrest of judgment, motion refused. Judgment and appeal.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nBailey, for defendant.\nAs to the motion in arrest:\nThere being an acquittal in the count for larceny, the count for receiving is alone under consideration, and with regard to that I submit that it is the play of Iiamlet with the Prince of Denmark left out. The name of the defendant being omitted from the first part, the count charges a receiving, but it cannot be seen by whom: the latter part in which the prisoner\u2019s name \u25a0 occurs, only charges him with a knowledge that certain goods had been theretofore stolen, which lias not as yet, been made an indictable offence.\nIndictments should be certain to every intent and without .any intendment to the contrary,. 1 Ch. Cr. Law, 171.\nAnd by reference to Arch. Cr. Pl\u2019d. I find a form of an indictment of larceny and receiving, thejonderof which had been airthorized by statute 11 and 12 Viet. Vol. 3 top page \u25a0 475, and in that form the name of the defendant appears after the words \u201c do say that \u201d and so is the printed form used by the \u00a1Solicitors which is herewith filed, furnished me by Gen. Cox. In the principal case, the verbs \u201c receive and have \u201d have no noun to govern them, nor are they employed in such connee\u2022tion that the ellipsis may be supplied."
  },
  "file_name": "0450-01",
  "first_page_order": 460,
  "last_page_order": 462
}