Case ID: nc_1-3/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court—", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State vs. Daniel Hendricks.
    The defendant was indicted for horse-stealing in Salisbury Superior Court of Law, March Term, 1802. The indictment laid the offence “ on the thirtieth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and in the XXV year of the Independence of the State.” The defendant being tried and convicted on this indictment, moved in arrest of judgment, and assigned the following reason, to wit. “ The offence laid in the bill of indictment, is charged to have been committed in the twenty-fifth year of American Independence; whereas in truth and in fact it was done in the twenty-sixth year of the said Independence, as is apparent in the form of the indictment.”
   By the Court—

The fact is charged to be committed on the 30th day of November, in the 25th year of the Independence of the State, and in the year of our Lord, 1801, which is in the 26th year of independence ; therefore charged to have been committed in two different years; which is contradictory, and vitiates the indictment.

No indictment can be good without precisely shewing a certain year and day, of the material facts alledged in it. 2 Hawk. P. C. 235. It is certain that if the indictment lays the offence on an uncertain or impossible day, as where it lays it on a future day, or lays one and the same offence at different days, &c. it will be held bad. Ibid. This is expressly the case in question. The offence is charged to have been committed on the same month in two different years, which is impossible. We are therefore of opinion, that the judgment should be arrested.