
    State v. Brickell.
    From Halifax.
    A caption of an indictment forms no .part of tlie indictment, and there-, fore it is not a ground for arresting judgment, that the indictment does not shew in its caption that it was taken before a Court in North-Carolina. While the indictment stood on the records of the Court below, it appeared to be an indictment of that Court; and when sent to this Court, the caption of the record of which it is a part, officially certified, renders it sufficiently certain.
    This was an indictment for an assault and battery tried in Halifax Superior Court, on which the Defendant had been convicted. A motion was made in arrest of judgment, for that it did not appear, either in the caption or any other part of the indictment, that it was taken before any Court in the State of North-Carolina.
    The caption and commencement of the indictment were as follows :
    
      “ IT rfn'r os ? Superior Court of Law, for the County of Halifax, 4th alJ "5 Monday after the 4th Monday of March, 1820.
    
      “ The Jurors for the State, upon their oath, present, that William' Brickell, yeoman, ike.”
    The case was argued by the Attorney General for the State, and submitted on the part of the Defendant.
   Haau, Judge.

The Clerk of the Superior Court of Law for the county of Halifax and State ofNorth-Carolina, certifies the record sent up in this case, as a record of that Court, and that record has the following caption : State of North-Carolina, Halifax County, Superior Court of Law.” lie then sets forth the indictment, commencing in these words, “ Halifax County, Superior Court of Law, &c.” “ The Jurors for the State, upon their oath, &c.” It is insisted that the judgment should be arrested, because it is said, that in the caption of the indictment, it is not stated that the county of Halifax is in the State of North-Carolina. The objection surely cannot be sustained, because a caption to an indictment is no part of it — (Chitty on Grim. Law, 326—1 Saunders, 250, d. N. 1) nor is it necessary that it should have any, because the caption to the record clearly shews in what Court, County and State, the indictment was found. While the indictment remained on the record of Halifax Court, it appeared to be an indictment of that Court; when sent into this Court, the caption of the record (of which it is a part) is a copy of the style of the Court at which it was found, and renders it thereby sufficiently certain. I think the reasons in arrest of judgment should be overruled.

Juke, 1821. State Sauncleis.

Tatlor, Chief-Justice, and Henderson, Judge, con? furred.  