Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 N.C. 262

Pencavin v. Trapping

Decided July 1, 1793

CASE against two, in C. B. for procuring the plaintiff to be indicted of common barretry. He had judgment and error was brought here. 1. They ought not to be joined in one action; quia the procurement of one, is not the procurement of the other. 7 Jac. Stade vs. Roper. K. B. the court was divided on a question, whether an action may be brought against many, for procuring a person to be put out of the commission of the peace. Intrat. T. 6. Jac. rot. 568. M. 1 Jac.

Decided 1793-07-01

Doderidge, J.

¶1et al. argued that the place of the procurement ought to be shewn; but he said that here it is not shewn, quia it is no procurement until he be indicted, aliter, in a conspiracy, for if two conspire to indict one, it is no procurement, until he be indicted.

¶2Sed Hyde, C. J. Jones, J. and Whitlock, J. e contra *and adjournatur. Intrat. term P. for they continued opposed to Doderidge, J’s. opinion: quia the indictment is no offence, without a false procurement. Ergo, if two conspire that one should indict, the action lies against both for procurement. [Quære de hoc?]

¶3Banks cited 27 Aff. 44. and Brief 924. that the action *264lies, although there be no indictment, but not a writ of conspiracy. So conspiracy lies not, if the indictment be bad; but an action on the case lies, although the indictment be reversed, Yet the amercement remains. 8 E. 4. 25, and the costs. 28 H. 8. 2.

Hyde, C. J.

¶4The procurement is the imagination or agreement to indict.

/1/nc/262 · .json · Public domain