# State v. . Gillikin

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · February 5, 1894 · 114 N.C. 832

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3674451

## Case

- **Full name:** State v. john.E. Gillikin.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 5, 1894
- **Citations:** 114 N.C. 832; 19 S.E. 152
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Clark
- **Judges:** Clark
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3674451

## Opinion text

Clark, J.:
The special verdict finds that all the requirements existed which rendered the defendant liable to road duty, and the Court had power to amend the warrant as it did.
State
v.
Poole,
106 N. C., 698 . The defendant failed to render such duty when duly summoned, and was properly adjudged to be guilty. The fact that defendant did not use and had no occasion to use the road to which he was assigned is no defence. His assignment to any particular road rested with the Board of Supervisors of the township.
The Code,
§2016. There is nothing tending to show that such Board acted fraudulently, oppressively or beyond their powers. As to the point raised upon the form of the
*835
special verdict, there is some discrepancy between the earlier practice as stated in
State
v.
Moore,
29 N. C., 228 , and a later practice sanctioned in
State v.
Moore, 107 N. C., 770 , and cases there cited. This was brought to the attention of the Court in
State
v.
Ewing,
108 N. C., 755 , and after “mature consideration” it was there held that either practice would be sufficient, but that the older practice as stated in
State v. Moore,
29 N. C., 228 , was the better one. That is the course which has been followed in the present instance. No Error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3674451. Public record. Not legal advice.