Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Smith

78 N.C. 462

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1878-01-05
Topic
general

Reade, J. The indictment charges the defendant' with having forged an order for sixty dollars and seven cents. There was no evidence tending to show that he had forged an order for that amount, and of course he ought not to have been convicted. The only evidence introduced related to two orders, — one for sixty dollars, and the other for sixty dollars and twenty seven cents. "Whether these discrepancies between the charge and the proof really appeared on the trial, or whether they are the result of a careless record, we do not know.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. . Smith. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
STATEv. SMITH,78 N.C. 462(1878)
STATE v. ISAAC H. SMITH.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(January Term, 1878.)
Indictment — Forgery — Evidence — Testimony ofSolicitor.

1. On the trial of an indictment for forgery, charging the defendant with having forged an order for $60.07, evidence that the defendant had forged an order forany other amountis not admissible.

2. It is error to permit the solicitor for the State to testify in a criminal trial without being sworn.
FORGERY, tried at Spring Term, 1877, of CRAVEN, beforeMoore, J.

No statement of the facts is necessary to an understanding of the opinion of this Court as delivered byMr. Justice Reade. Verdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.
(463)Attorney-General for the State.M. DeW. Stevenson for the defendant.
READE, J.
The indictment charges the defendant with having forged an order for $60.07. There was no evidence tending to show that he had forged an order for that amount, and of course he ought not to have been convicted.

The only evidence introduced related to two orders, one for $60 and the other for $60.27.Page 311

Whether these discrepancies between the charge and the proof really appeared on the trial, or whether they are the result of a careless record, we do not know. We are bound by the record.

One of the witnesses for the State, the solicitor, was permitted to testify for the State without being sworn, the defendant objecting. This was error.

PER CURIAM.Venire de novo.

(464)