{
  "id": 11274501,
  "name": "STATE v. ALONZO THOMPSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1885-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "537",
  "last_page": "539",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "93 N.C. 537"
    }
  ],
  "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": "78 N. C., 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696979
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N. C., 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12117530
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/82/0679-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696979
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N. C., 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12117530
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/82/0679-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 3415,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23916297822768817
    },
    "sha256": "958cf5e7b4134ca833530a8da5b68f92339dad4a4f367fe0e7d3c85974c1af64",
    "simhash": "1:f173a370461afd66",
    "word_count": 587
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:31:05.515433+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ALONZO THOMPSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ashe, J.\n(after stating the facts). By the common law, larceny cannot be committed of things which savor of the realty, and are at the time they are taken a part of the freehold, such as corn and the produce of land. 2 Russell on Crimes, 136; State v. Foy, 82 N. C., 679.\nBut the defendant was indicted under the statute, which declares, \u201c If auy person shall steal, or feloniously take and carry away any maize, corn, wheat, rice, or other grain, or any cotton, tobacco, potatoes, peanuts, pulse, or any vegetable or other product cultivated for food or market, growing, standing, or remaining ungathered in any field or ground, he shall be guilty of larceny, and punished accordingly.\u201d The Code, \u00a71069.\nCan the indictment be sustained under the statute? We are of the opinion it cannot. Watermelons are not named iu the statute as the subject of larceny, and it is no violation of law to steal them while growing and ungathered/unless by construction, they are included in the words of the statute, \u201cor any fruit, vegetable or other product cultivated for food or market.\u201d These words constitute the description of the offence, and unless the indictment follows the language of the statute, and expressly charges the offence, so as to bring it within the description, it is defective. This indictment omits the words, \u2018cultivated for food or market/ which constitute a material part of the description of the offence. It was so held in the case of State v. Liles, 78 N. C., 496,\nThere the defendant was indicted for the larceny of figs, \u201c remaining ungathered in a certain field,\u201d &c., and the words \u201ccultivated for food or market,\u201d were omitted, and it was held by this Court that the indictment, for that reason, was fatally defective. That case is directly in point and is decisive of this.\nThe judgment is arrested, and this must be certified to the Superior Court of Robeson county.\nError. Judgment arrested.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ashe, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Messrs. French & Norment, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ALONZO THOMPSON.\nLarceny \u2014 Indictment.\n1. At common law, larceny cannot be committed of things which are a part of the freehold at the time they are taken, but by statute in this State, any vegetable or other product, cultivated for food or market, growing, standing or remaining ungathered in any field, is the subject of larceny.\n2. An indictment under this statute which fails to charge that the article alleged to be stolen, was cultivated for food or market, is fatally defective.\n{Slate v. Foy, 82 N. C., 679; Stale.v. Liles, 78 N. C., 496, cited and approved).\nIndictment for larceny, tried before MacRae, Judge, and a jury, at August Term, 1885, of the Superior Court of Robeson county.\nThe indictment was in the following words and figures, to-wit: \u201cThe jurors for the State, upon their oath, present, that Alonzo Thompson, late of the county of Robeson, on the 27th day of July, A. D. 1885, with force and arms, at and in the county aforesaid, one watermelon, of the value of a sixpence, the property of C. B. Thompson, then and there standing and remaining ungathered in a certain field of the said C. B. Thompson there situate, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the form of the statute,\u201d &c.\nThe defendant was convicted. There was a motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled by the Court. Judgment was pronounced against the defendant, from which he appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nMessrs. French & Norment, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0537-01",
  "first_page_order": 569,
  "last_page_order": 571
}