Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889

State v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided February 5, 1889 · Merrimon

9 S.E. 200; 103 N.C. 410 (South Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. . Brown (N.C. 1945)
Carson v. Doggett (N.C. 1950)
Alexander v. Lindsey (N.C. 1949)
State v. . Holt (N.C. 1928)
State v. . Mills (N.C. 1921)
State v. . Price (N.C. 1918)
State v. Price (N.C. 1918)
State v. . Yellowday (N.C. 1910)
State v. Yellowday (N.C. 1910)
State Ex Rel. Solicitor v. Jenkins (N.C. 1897)
Cox v. . Grisham (N.C. 1893)
State v. . Baker (N.C. 1890)
State v. . Pool (N.C. 1890)
State v. . Wilson (N.C. 1890)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*411 Merrimon, J.

(after stating the case). The amendment of the warrant allowed did not change the nature of the-offence charged, or affect the substance thereof, nor did it deprive the defendant of any defence he might or could have made. The power of the Superior Court to allow such amendments is very comprehensive, and is intended to help-actions and proceedings, both civil and criminal, beginning in courts of Justices of the Peace. This authority to exercise such power has been repeatedly considered by this Court, and is well settled. State v. Vaughan, 91 N. C., 532; State v. Crook, ibid., 536; Singer Mfg. Co v. Barrett, 95 N. C., 36.

Yery clearly the Superior Court had power to allow the amendments complained of, and properly did so.

No error. Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.