Case ID: nc_53/html/0459-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Battle, J. Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. JIM, (a slave.)
    
    A house eighteen feet long, and fifteen wide, built of logs notched up, the cracks covered inside with rough boards, roofed with rough boards, with a good plank floor, and a door about four feet high, containing, at the time of the burning, a quantity of corn, peas and oats, though the only building on the farm used for storing the crop, is not a bam within the meaning of the statute; Rev. Code, chap. 34, sec. 2.
    This was an indictment for arson, tried before Howard, J., at the Pall Term, 1861, of Lenoir Superior Court.
    The facts,of the case are so fully stated in the opinion of the Court, that it is unnecessary to set them out here.
    
      Attorney General and Winston, Sr., for the State.
    
      J. W. Bryan, for the defendant.
   Battle, J.

This is an indictment, under the statute, Eev. Code, chap. 34, sec. 2, for Arson, in burning a barn, having corn in it. Upon the trial it was proved, that the house burnt was eighteen feet long, and fifteen feet wide, was built of logs notched up, and the cracks were covered inside with rough boards, the house was roofed with rough boards, had a good plank floor, and a door about four feet high, of the usual width,, which opened to within a log or two of the floor, and was fastened with a padlock. At the time when it was burnt, the house contained a quantity of corn, peas, and oats, and it was the only building on the farm used for storing the crop. The witnesses stated that it was called sometimes a crib, but generally a barn. The presiding Judge charged the jury, that the house was a barn within the meaning of the statute ; whereupon a verdict of guilty was rendered against the defendant, and from the judgment thereon, he has appealed to this Court. '

We differ from the -opinion expressed by his Honor, that the house, as described by the testimony, was a barn. The description of it does not differ, materially, from that set forth in the special verdict rendered by the jury, in the case of the State v. Laughlin, (ante 455) in which we have decided at the present term, that the house burnt was not a barn, but was either a crib or a granary. For the reasons given for our opinion in that case, we hold that the house burnt, as proved on the trial in the present case, was not a barn, and that, consequently, the prisoner is entitled to a vmi/re de novo, and this, will be. certified to the Court below as the law directs.

Per Curiam,

Judgment reversed.