TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Simpson

State v. Simpson. &8212 From Columbus.

State v. Simpson, 9 N.C. 460 (1823)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1823
Judges
Taylor
Citations
9 N.C. 460
Headnotes
&n indictment, charging that the Defendant unlawfully, wickedly, nía. liciously, and mischievously, did set fire to, burn, and consume, one hundred barrels of tar,” &c. and concluding at Common Law, was sustained.
Summary
From Columbus. The Defendant was convicted and sentenced below r and on his appeal to this Court, the following appeared to be the Indictment: '^^Co^vlui-a's^Govs'jyr ^ Superior. Court of Law, Spring Term, 1822. The Jurors for the State, upon their oath, present, that Edward Simpson, late of Columbus County, on the fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twelve, with, force and arms, in said county, unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, and mischievously, did set fire to, burn and consume, one hundred barrels of tar, of the goods and chattels of one Luke Tates, then and there being, to the evil example of others, in like case offending, and against the peace and dignity of the State.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Taylor

Taylor, Chief-Justice.

Malicious mischief, in most of its forms, has been legislated upon in England, for the purpose of annexing a severer punishment to it than the law allowed in misdemeanor. The number of these statutes has so overlaid the Common Law offence, that it is difficult to trace any distinct account of it, and it is the best in the Commentaries. “ Malicious mischief of damage is the next species of injury to private property?

*461 which the law considers as a public crime. This is such as is done, not animo fnrandi, or with an intent of gain-»ng by another’s loss, which is some, though a weak excuse : but either out of a spirit of wanton cruelty or dia-holical revenge. In which it bears a near relation to the nrime of arson ; for as that affects the habitation, so this affects the other property of individuals. And therefore, any damage arising from this mischievous disposition, though only a trespass at Common Law, is now, by a multitude of statutes, made penal in the highest degree,”- — (4 Blackstone, 254.) The crime charged in this indictment, is accompanied with every circumstance which brings it within the foregoing definition $ and it is certainly consistent with the policy of the law, to protect property from those modes of destruction, against which all means of precaution and human prudence are unavailing. The offence in this case was done under circumstances and motives, the absence of which led the Court to believe that the indictment Landreth could not be supported — (2 L. Repos.

44G.) I am therefore of opinion, that there ought to be judgment fox' the State.

The other Judges concurred in the opinion that judg ment should be so rendered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1968: 119682026peak 1968 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Duncan v. State248 A.2d 176 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1968)

Most recent

  1. Duncan v. State248 A.2d 176 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list