{
  "id": 11278637,
  "name": "STATE vs. BENJAMIN STATON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Staton",
  "decision_date": "1872-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "640",
  "last_page": "643",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 N.C. 640"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Ired., 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        2104283
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/23/0424-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ired., 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        2104283
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/23/0424-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 401,
    "char_count": 5939,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.367,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43893852498736413
    },
    "sha256": "adb42362295a0e76829bb1f88e6743588c436f3a407284eb24537ba451fe25b9",
    "simhash": "1:b26d29b86ebd79cc",
    "word_count": 1031
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:37.048272+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. BENJAMIN STATON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Dick, J.\nThe Statute, (Acts 1868 \u2014 \u201969, chap. 253,) declares:\n\u201c That it any person shall kill or abuse any horse, mule, cattle hog, sheep or neat cattle, the property o\u00ed another in an inclosure, not surrounded by a lawful fence, such person shall be., deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, <fce.\nThe indictment charges that the defendant Benjamin Staton \u201cunlawfully and wilfully did abuse and injure the stock, viz : the hogs oi one Isaac Heath, then and there being in the field \u00a1of the said Benjamin Staton, the same not being surrounded by a lawful fence.\u201d After a verdict of guilty, the defendant moved to arrest the judgment on the ground that the offence created by the Statute was not charged with sufficient^certain-fcy in the bill of indictment.\nI In setting out a Statutory offence in an indictment, it is in ben eral sufficient to describe it in the words of the Statute, if lvex-y fact necessary to constitute the offence is declared in. fctie Statute with certainty and precision 2 Hawk , ch. 25, sec. 3. Arch. Or. Pl., 51.\nAs criminal statutes are usually drawn with deliberation and skill, it is the safest course to pursue strictly the words of the statute, as it precludes all questions about the meaning of the words used, and the Courts have always shown a great tendency in criminal proceedings to adhere to the strict letter of the law. It is not always absolutely essential to follow precisely the words of the statute ; equivalent words, in an indictment, will be held sufficient, but, they must state all the circumstances which constitute the definition of the offence in the statute, so as to bring the defendant clearly within it. Commonwealth v. Bean, 2 Leading Cr., C. Heard 172, and notes. Bish. C P., sec.. 291, 269. State v. Stanton, 1 Ired. 424.\nThere have been hundreds of decisions in the Courts of England and of this country upon this question, and no rule has been laid down which will meet every case that may arise on this subject.\nMr. Archbold states a rule which will generally be found applicable. \u201cWhen a word not in the statute, is substituted in the indictment for one that is, and, the word thus substituted is equivalent to the word used in the statute, or, is of more extensive signification than it and includes it, the indictment will be sufficient-\u201d Arch. C. P. 52.\nIn our case the words used in the statute in describing the offence, is \u201c inclosure,\u201d the word substituted in the indictment is \u201c field,\u201d and we have to consider whether the words come within the above rule.\nInclosure is a general term which includes several specific things: as, a farm, public square, cemetery, fortification, etc. The modified meaning of the word as used in the statute, is ascertained by reference to a statute in pari materia (Rev. Co. eh. 48,) to be \u201cinclosed grounds,\u201d used for the purpose of habitations and husbandry, and separated from woodland or common by a fence or wall of some kind. Such an inclosure may be a yard, graden, orchard, field, etc. The word field has not as extensive a signification as inelosure, and therefore, the terms are not equivalent and the less cannot in elude the greater.\nThe word field has no technical signification in law, (1 Chit Pr. 160,) and we see by reference to Webster\u2019s Dictionary that it has thirteen different meanings.\nThe farmer speaks of a field, as part of his farm separately enclosed, but, the word is often used in common parlance to dis_ tinguish cleared land from woodland. Thus we often say old Afield,\u201d which generally signifies a piece of land uninclosed.\n\u2022 Thus it appears, that the indictment founded on the statute, instead of the words of the statute, uses other words which may-have a diffei\u2019ent signification. The charge in the indictment may be strictly true, and yet the defendant, be not guilty of the offence, contemplated and defined in tEe\"siStute.\nThe defect in the indictment is not cured by the statute (Rev. Code ch. 36, sec. 14,) as it is not an \u201c informality and refinement,\u201d but it is a failure to \u201c express the charge against the the defendant, in a plain intelligible, and explicit manner.\u201d\nThe ruling of His Honor was correct and the judgment is-.affirmed. Let this be certified.\nPur Curiam. Judgment Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dick, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General for the State.",
      "David Coleman for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. BENJAMIN STATON.\n1. An indictment nnder the Act of 1868-\u201969, ch. 253, concerning the killing, &c., of stock \u201cin any inclosnre not surronnded by a lawful fence,\u201d which simply charges the injury &c., to have been committed on stock in \u201cthe field\u201d of one A. B., is not certain to that extent required in such pleading, and after a con. viction on such indictment, a motion in arrest of judgment wiil be sustained.\n2. Such a defect is not an informality or refinement within the purview of the 14th sec. of 35th chap, of the Rev. Code, but is a failure to express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible and explicit manner.\nThe case of Stater. Stanton, 1 Ired., 424, cited and approved.\nThis was a motion in arrest of judgment made after conviction at Fall Term 1871, of the Superior Court of TransyL-vania county, His Honor, Judge Cloud presiding.\nThe indictment is in these words, viz : \u201c The jurors for the State upon their oath present that Benjamin Staton, late of the county of Transylvania, on the 10th day of October, 1868, with force and arms at and in the county iforesaid unlawfully and wilfully did abuse, weary and injure tbe stock, to-wit: the hogs of one Isaac Heath, then and there being in the field of the said Benjamin Staton, the same not being surrounded by a lawful fence, to the great damage of the said 'Isaac Heath, contrary to the form of the Statute in such eases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nGUDGER, Sou.\nHis Honor sustained the motion, and arrested judgment; from this ruling, Mr. Solicitor Henby appealed to this . Court.\nAttorney General for the State.\nDavid Coleman for the defendant.\nProbably a mistake for \u201cworry.'\u2019"
  },
  "file_name": "0640-01",
  "first_page_order": 662,
  "last_page_order": 665
}