Case ID: nc_6/html/0201-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lowrxe, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State v. Benjamin Johnson.
    From Robeson.
    "Fhe prosecution being removed for trial to another County, the Clerk transmitted tire original indictment, on rvhich tire Defendant was tried and convicted. It Was moved in arrest, that under the act of 1806, the Clerk should have transmitted a copy of the indictment as part of the transcript of the record, and that the Defendant ought to have been tried on this copy. Motion disallowed.
    The Defendant was indicted for petit larceny in Cumberland County Court,1 and being convicted, he appealed to the Superior Court. At the term at which the appeal was returned lie filed an affidavit, on which the Court ordered the prosecution to be remeted for trial to Robeson County, and at fall term 1811, of Robeson Superior Court, be was tried and convicted; and it was moved in arrest of judgment, 1st. that he was tried in the Superior Court of Robeson County upon a copy of the record from the County Court of Cumberland, which was not certified under the seal of the Court j 2d. that the Clerk of Cumberland Superior Court transmitted to Robeson Superior Court, the transcript of the record received by him from the Clerk of the'County Court of Cumberland, instead of sending a copy of that record as required by the act of 1806; and 6d. that the act of 1806, requires a transcript of the record, to be transmitted from one Superior Court to another, and not the original.
   Lowrxe, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court: In this case the original indictment and not a transcript was sent to Robeson Superior Court, and the Defendant has been tried on it and convicted. Had it not been for the peculiar words of the act of 1806, the objections now urged would never have been thought of. It is a novel objection that the Defendant has been tried on the original indictment, and not on a copy. TJie objection is not substantial: for the Defendant by pleading to the , . , , . , original indictment did.not loose any advantage that he could kave bad by being tried on the- transcript. The original is better evidence of the facts charged, and of the finding of the Grand Jury, than any transcript or copy can be. The object of the clause- of the act relied on, is to multiply the chances of a fair and impartial trial by Jury; and as that was in no respect abridged by the Defendant’s taking his trial on the original bill, the reasons offered in arrest, must be overruled. Judgment for the State.