¶1 The special verdict finds that all the requirements existed which rendered the defendant liable to road duty, and the Court had power to amend the warrant as it did. State v. Poole, 106 N. C., 698. The defendant failed to render such duty when duly summoned, and was properly adjudged to be guilty. The fact that defendant did not use and had no occasion to use the road to which he was assigned is no defence. His assignment to any particular road rested with the Board of Supervisors of the township. The Code, §2016. There is nothing tending to show that such Board acted fraudulently, oppressively or beyond their powers. As to the point raised upon the form of the *835 special verdict, there is some discrepancy between the earlier practice as stated in State v. Moore, 29 N. C., 228, and a later practice sanctioned in State v. Moore, 107 N. C., 770, and cases there cited. This was brought to the attention of the Court in State v. Ewing, 108 N. C., 755, and after “mature consideration” it was there held that either practice would be sufficient, but that the older practice as stated in State v. Moore, 29 N. C., 228, was the better one. That is the course which has been followed in the present instance. No Error.
114 N.C. 832
19 S.E 152
State v. . Gillikin
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided February 5, 1894
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1894-02-05
The defendant was convicted in Magistrate’s Court for failure to work on public road, the warrant charging that he willfully and unlawfully failed and refused “to attend ancl work on the roacl leading from Adams’ creek to South river, lie having been lawfully summoned to work thereon, and he, the said John E. Gillikiu, being-at the time of such failure and refusal one of the hands assigned to work on said road.” Defendant appealed to the Superior Court, and when the case was…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1894-02-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1964
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →