State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 31 January 1871 |
| Citation | 65 N.C. 313 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. WILLIAM BELL. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Where, in an indictment for larceny, it was charged that the article stolen was the property of H. Hoffa, whose given name was to the jurors unknown, and it was testified by witnesses that they knew of no other name of the owner of the article than H. Hoffa, it was held, that there was no variance between the allegation and the proof.
The owner of an article charged to have been stolen, may have a name by reputation, and if it be proved that he is as well known by that name as any other, a charge in an indictment by that name will be sufficient.
If a person usually signs his name with only the initials of his christian name; and he is thus generally known and designated, he may be properly indicted by such name.
The cases of State v. Angel, 7 Ired. 27, State v. Godet, Ibid 210, cited and approved.
The defendant was indicted and tried at the last Term of the Superior Court of WAKE County, before his Honor, Judge Watts, for stealing a valise, the property of H. Hoffa, whose given name was to the jurors unknown.
On the trial it was proved on behalf of the State by Dr. G. W. Blacknall and others that the owner of the valise stolen by the defendant was H. Hoffa. The defendant's counsel contended before the jury that the proof of the owner of the property being H. Hoffa, there was a fatal variance, and asked the Court so to charge, but his Honor held that there was no variance and that the indictment was sufficient, and not bad for uncertainty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and after ineffectual motions for a new trial, and in arrest, judgment was pronounced, and defendant appealed.
A. M. Lewis, for the defendant .
Attorney General, for the State .
The indictment charges, that the valise stolen was the property of “H. Hoffa whose given name is to the jurors unknown.” The witness proved that the property stolen belonged to H. Hoffa, and gave no information as to the “given” or christian name of the owner. The proof, therefore, corresponded with the allegation, and there was no variance--and the jury properly convicted the defendant.
The motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled. The technical precision required in the old forms of indictment are not now strictly observed in criminal proceedings, and judgment will not be arrested where sufficient matter appears to enable the Court to proceed to judgment. Rev. Code, ch. 35,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rogers, 247
...N.C. 645, 31 S.E.2d 920, 156 A.L.R. 625; State v. Nunley, 224 N.C. 96, 29 S.E.2d 17; State v. Harris, 195 N.C. 306, 141 S.E. 883; State v. Bell, 65 N.C. 313. This is a correct statement of the law as to larceny; however, it is not necessary that ownership of the property be laid in any part......
-
State v. Carnagy
... ... Code, section ... 5286; State v. Carr, 43 Iowa 418; State v ... Cuningham, 21 Iowa 433; State v. Emeigh, 18 ... Iowa 122; State v. Flynn, 42 Iowa 164; State v ... Crawford, 66 Iowa 318, 23 N.W. 684; State v ... Fogerty, 105 Iowa 32, 74 N.W. 754; State v ... Bell, 65 N.C. 313; State v. Windahl, 95 Iowa ... 470, 64 N.W. 420 ... II. If ... there was no evidence of penetration, it may be conceded that ... the issue as to whether the defendant was guilty of rape ... ought not to have been submitted to the jury. See State ... v. Kyne, 86 ... ...
-
State v. Stinson, 722
...the defendants against another prosecution with the right to the property laid in the seizing officer or in the custody of the law. State v. Bell, 65 N.C. 313. The City of Winston-Salem, no doubt, owns a number of automobiles, such as would fit the description in the bill, but none of these......
-
State v. Carnagy
...18 Iowa, 122;State v. Flynn, 42 Iowa, 164;State v. Crawford, 66 Iowa, 318, 23 N. W. 684;State v. Fogerty (Iowa) 74 N. W. 754;State v. Bell, 65 N. C. 313;State v. Windahl (Iowa) 64 N. W. 420. 2. If there was no evidence of penetration, it may be conceded that the issue as to whether the defe......