Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 N.C. 572

State v. . Dewer

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1871

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1871-06-05

Indictment for wilfully burning a barn containing grain^ tried-before Toiorgee, Jat Spring Term, 1871, of Chatham Superior Court. The defendants with Henderson Nash, Hardy Stewart, Luke-Olive and Wyatt Boylan, wrere jointly indicted for wilfully and feloniously setting fire to and burning a barn, containing grain,, the property of one James IT. Minims.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1980

3 state decisions

10187118801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Peaeson, C. J.

¶1 The act 1868-9, ch. 167, entitled: An ■act in relation to punishment” abolishes the punishment of death, except for the crimes of murder and rape, and substitutes imprisonment in the State’s prison for life or for years, for the crime of burning a barn with grain in it; the term is -not less than five, nor more than sixty years. The act also abolishes whipping and other corporeal punishments, and sub■stitutes imprisonment in the State’s prison.

¶2 To support the ruling of his Honor, it is necessary to establish the proposition, that the effect of this statute, is to make all felonies, except murder and rape, “ misdemeanors.” If that 'be so, his Honor was right, for there are no accessories before the fact in mere misdemeanors; and all are treated as principals. The statute is entitled: “ An act in relation to punishment.” Its object is to substitute the Penitentiary for the gallows and the whipping post, that is all. How it can have the further effect, incidentally, to change the grade of crime, we .are not able to see. No authority was cited, and no reason was suggested in support of the proposition.

¶3 The prisoners might have been indicted and tried as accessories before the fact, and it was error to convict them under an indictment, in which they, with others, are all charged as principals.

¶4 Judgment reversed. Per Curiam.

/65/nc/572 · .json · Public domain