Case ID: nc_13/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hall, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas D. Watts v. Thomas Scott,
    From Orange.
    
      ¿, warrant for the penalty imposed by a town ordinance is sufficient, after verdict, if it be “ to answer for violating the 28th section, &c,” without setting forth the provisions of that section, or the facts alleged to be a breach of it.
    After the new trial granted in this cause, at December Term, 1827, (ante 1 vol. 291) it was again tried before Ruffin Judge, on the last circuit, when the case upon the record was, that the Plaintiff, as Treasurer of the town of Hillsborough, had sued out the following warrant against the Defendant. “ To the Constable, &c. You are hereby commanded to take the body of T. S &r. o answer the complaint of T. D. W. Treasurer, &c. for the sum of ten dollars, for violating the 2&th section of the Ordinances of said town. Given, &<
    A verdict being returned for the Plaintiff, the Defendant moved in arrest of judgment,
    1st. Because the warrant did not state as a fact, the existence of the ordinance mentioned in it — nor the contents of such ordinance, or any part thereof.
    2d. Because the warrant did not allege any act or omission of the Defendant, by which any penalty given by the ordinance hail been incurred, or any other fact upon which, fbe debt demanded in it had arisen.
    Dec. 1828.
    Foe these reasons, the presiding Judge arrested the judgment, and the Plaintiff appealed.
    No Counsel appeared for the Plaintiff, and the catjse was submitted without argument, by Badger, for the Defendant.
   Hall, Judge.

It cannot be expected that the cause of action should have been set forth at large in the warrant. “ The amount claimed, and how due” is shown. It is stated to be for $10, for violating the 28th section of the ordinances of said town. Th is is enough I think to give the Defendant notice of what the complaint was, so that he might have been prepared for trial; on the trial he should be at liberty to prove the ordinance, as •well as a breach of it by the Defendant.

Per Curiam. Let the judgment below be reversed, and judgment entered for the Plaintiff.