Case Name: THE STATE vs. WILLIAM TRIBATT
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1849-08
Citations: 10 Ired. 151
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE vs. WILLIAM TRIBATT.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
THE STATE vs. WILLIAM TRIBATT.
Although It ia not proper, In an Indictment, to lay an offence as committed against‘‘the Act of.Assembly,” instead of saying against the “Statute,” yet the informality is one of those cured by our Act of Assembly.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Ashe County, at (he Spring Term 1849, his Honor Judge Ellis presiding.
This was an indictment against the defendant for selling spirituous liquors without a licence. The offence was laid to be against “the Act of Assembly” — and upon this ground the defendant moved in arrest of judgment. The motion was sustained by the Court, and the Solicitor .for the State appealed.
Attorney General, for the State.
No counsel for the defendant.,,

Opinion:
Pearson, J.
The defendant moves to arrest the judgment, because the indictment concludes "against the form of the Act of Assembly," instead of the "Statute."
It is best to adhere to established forms, and it tends to promote clearness and precision, always to make use of the same words to convey the same idea. A diversified mode of expression may sometimes add to the beauty of composition, but precision is of more importance in judicial proceedings than beauty.
The word Statute has a definite meaning. The word Act has a general meaning, and unless other words are added, it may mean the doing of any body ; but statute, ex vi termini, means the doing of a legislative body. Hence, to make the word Act convey the same idea as the word Statute, it is necessary to add "0/ the General Assembly," thus using five words instead of one. The title of our Legislature is the "General Assembly." The word General is omitted in this indictment, and the obscurity arises from the fact, that- there is no such body as "The Assembly," properly speaking.
We are of opinion, that the statute, which provides that judgment shall not be arrested by reason of any informality or refinement, where there appears to the Court sufficient in the face of the indictment to induce them to proceed to judgment, applies to this case, and that the judgment should not have been arrested. Our attention has been called to the fact, that the same informality existed in the indictment in State v. Gallimore, 7 Ire. 147. There was judgment in that case, and the prisoner was executed. The informality was not noticed.
This opinion must be certified to the Court below, that it may proceed to give judgment upon the conviction.
Per Curiam.
Ordered accordingly.