Case ID: scl_5/html/0139-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Colcock, J., Nott, J..", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1813.
    The State v. Michael B. Roberts.
    Defendant was indicted for marldng the prosecutor’s hogs in his own mark; but the indictment did not charge the defendant in the words of the A. A. 1789, with having “ wilfully and knowingly marked,” &c. Judgment arrested, the offence not being charged in the indictment according to the A. A.
    Motion in arrest of judgment.
    Defendant was indicted and tried in the Court of General Sessions of the district of Spartanburgb, before Smith, J., for marldng the prosecutor’s, hogs in the mark of the said Roberts, contrary to thé A. A. The indictment did not charge the defendant in the words of the A. A. 1789, with having “wilfully and knowingly marked, branded, disguised, or disfigured.” P. L. 486.
    Gist, in support of the motion,
    insisted, that the indictment was insufficient. A man may lawfully mark the hog of another in his own mark, or he may unlawfully do it, without being subject to the penalty inflicted by the A. A. The indictment ought to pursue the terms of the act.
   Colcock, J.,

was opposed to arresting the judgment; but was of opinion a new trial ought to be granted, the dispute between the parties being about the right of property, and the case not being within the A. A.

Nott, J..

and the other judges, were for arresting the judgment, the offence not being charged in the indictment according to the A. A.