
    
      State v. Haddock.
    From Columbus.
    lij indictment, containing in its caption a statement or the term u,< these words, “ Fall Term, 1822,” and in the body of the indictment charging the time in these words, “ op the first day of August, m Le presera year,” was held good.
    Indictment for an assault, with intent to kill. The Indictment commenced as follows :
    
      « NORTH-CAROLINA, CoiuaiBírs Coukty. Superior Court of Law, Fall Term, 1822.
    
      “ The Jurors for the State upon their oath present, that John Had-, dock, late of Columbus, on the first day of August, in the present year, with force and arms,” &c.
    After conviction, it was moved in arrest, that the time when the offence was committed was not laid in the in - dictment with sufficient certainty.
    Judgment was arrested, and the State appealed.
   Taylor, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The objection is, that the caption does not state the term at which the Court was held, with sufficient certainty ; but where is the necessity of stating in the caption any time at all ? The record in this case shews that the indictment was found at a Superior Court held under due and legal authority ; and, as it is known that the Superior Courts are organised and act under a public law, this Court is bound judicially to recognise its power. A Court acting under limited and special powers, may require a caption specifying its authority, but not a Court sitting under the general law of the land. But “ Fall Term” is certain enough, for we know the Fall begins the first of September, and that the circuit in which Columbus is located, also begins in September. The time of committing the offence is stated with sufficient precision; the present year refers to the year mentioned in the caption. The judgment must be entered up for the State.  