Case Name: State v. Twitty
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1825-12
Citations: 4 Hawks 193
Docket Number: 
Parties: State v. Twitty.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
State v. Twitty.
From Lincoln.
The Governor cannot, constitutionally, add to or commute a punishment; but under the power of pardoning, he may remit part of a fine.
The defendant had been convicted of forgery, and appealed to this Court, where the judgment below was affirmed. The sentence of the Court was, the pillory, three years imprisonment, thirty-nine lashes, and a fine of Si,000. Execution issued for the fine and costs, and the sheriff levied on property sufficient to satisfy them: after-wards a ven. ex. issued, on which the sheriff returned, that he had sold the property, satisfied other executions from Mecklenburg, and had satisfied one half of the. above fine of $1,000, the residue having been remitted by Governor Hoimes, and that by direction of Mr. Solicitor Wilson, he still retained in his hánds the remaining $500.
At October term, 1825, before Nash, Judge, the defendant was, on motion of Mr. Wilson, ordered to show cause wherefore execution should not issue for the remaining $500; and on argument the rule was discharged; whereupon the Solicitor appealed, on the ground that, by the constitution and laws of North-Carolina, Governor Holmes was not vested with the power which he had exercised.
The transcript of the case sent up, did not contain a copy of the instrument signed by Gov. Holmes.
The case was submitted without argument.

Opinion:
Taylor, Chief Justice,
delivered the Court's opinion.
The power of pardoning is confided to the Governor, by the constitution, in very general terms, and restricted only to those cases where the general assembly shall carry on the prosecution, or the law shall otherwise direct. This case does not come within either of the exceptions; and as the Governor might have granted a pardon as to the whole of the punishment, why may he not do so as to part? Though he cannot add to or commute a punishment, it is consistent with the spirit of this authority, and clearly within its words, that he should remit part of a fine. There seems to be no ground for doubting; and the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment aeeirmEd.