Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 N.C. 624

State v. . Watson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1882

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1882-02-05

Indictment for larceny tried at Fall Term, 1881, of Richmond Superior Court, before Graves, J. The indictment was found by the grand jury of Anson county at spring term, 1880, of the superior court for that county, against the defendant John Dulton and others.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1905

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-02-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ashe, J.

¶1 The only exception taken on the trial was to-the ruling of His Honor in admitting certain evidence-which was objected to by the defendant, but we think it needless to consider it, as we are of the opinion that an error was committed in declining to entertain the plea of abatement.

¶2 Every defendant has the right before he is put to answer a charge of the state against him, to require that the accusation should be preferred by a bill of indictment found by a grand jury composed of «men qualified to serve, as prescribed by law, and he is at liberty to avail himself of the disqualification of any one or more of them when or before he is called upon to plead. State v. Smith, 80 N. C., 410.

¶3 The non-payment of taxes for the year preceding the term of the court when a bill of indictment is found, has been held to disqualify a grand juror, and a defendant may avail himself of such a disqualification by a plea in abatement if filed in apt time. State v. Griffice, 74 N. C., 316. What is meant by apt time is the arraignment of the defendant. State v. Griffice, supra: State v. Haywood, 73 N. C., 437; State v. Seaborn, 4 Dev., 305; State v. Baldwin, 80 N. C., 390.

¶4 In these, and other cases we might cite, the time limited for filing a plea in abatement is the arraignment, and the “ arraignment is nothing but the calling of the offender to *626 the bar of the court to answer the matter charged against him by indictment or appeal.” 2 Hale’s P. C., 216; 4 Black., 321. In this case the defendant was not called upon to plead until the spring term, 1881, when he filed his plea in abatement. Achbold’s (Crim. Plead., p. 73,) lays ft down, that where the defendant has any special matter to plead in abatement, or in bar, or if the indictment be demurrable, he should plead it, or demur at the time of arraignment before the plea of not guilty. This the defendant has done, and we are of the opinion his plea should have been entertained, and there was error in the court declining to do so.

¶5 The judgment of the court below must therefore be reversed and the verdict set aside and the case remanded that the truth of the matter set forth in the defendant’s plea may be inquired of.

¶6 Error. • Reversed.

/86/nc/624 · .json · Public domain