State v. Burke
| Decision Date | 17 March 1891 |
| Citation | 12 S.E. 1000,108 N.C. 750 |
| Parties | STATE v. BURKE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Robeson county; ARMFIELD, Judge.
The defendant is charged with the offense of false pretense, in violation of the statute. Code, § 1025. The indictment charges that the defendant, at, etc., "unlawfully and knowingly devising and pretending to cheat and defraud of did then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly falsely pretend to J. W. McRae that a certain mule which he the said J. M. Burke, proposed to trade to the said J. W McRae, was sound, and worked well, and would not kick whereas in truth and fact mule was not sound, would not work well, and would kick, as he, the said J. M. Burke, then and there well knew, by color and means of which said false pretense and pretenses the said J. M. Burke did then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly obtain from the said J. W. McRae one hundred dollars, being then and there the property of the said J. W. McRae, with intent to cheat and defraud, to the great damage of the said J. W. McRae, contrary," etc. The defendant appeared and moved to quash the same. The court allowed the motion, and, the solicitor for the state having excepted, the state appealed to this court. Code N.C. § 1025, provides that if any person shall knowingly and designedly by means of false pretense obtain from another any money or property," with intent to cheat or defraud any person of the same, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor for fraud and deceit. And said statute provides further that it shall be sufficient in any indictment for obtaining any such property by false pretenses to allege that the party accused did the act "with intent to defraud, without alleging an intent to defraud any particular person," and without alleging any ownership of the chattel.
The Attorney General, for the State.
(after stating the facts.) The indictment is not very formal and precise. There is some unnecessary repetition and redundancy in charging the offense that might well be omitted, but it serves every essential purpose. The false pretense and the purpose to defraud thereby are charged in the words of the statute, and, clearly. The word "said," which strictly ought to appear in the indictment next before the word "mule," at the end of the other words," whereas in truth and fact," is obviously and sufficiently implied from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...42 S.E. 539. And the indictment was held sufficient in several other cases cited in Pell's Revisal under section 3432. State v. Burke, 108 N.C. 750, 12 S.E. 1,000; State v. Skidmore, 109 N.C. 796, 14 S.E. 63, others. In Rev. § 3435, it is provided as to indictments for disposing of mortgage......
-
Faulk v. Thornton
... ... The action is in the ... nature of the action of trespass quare clausum fregit under ... the former method of civil procedure in this state, and the ... gist of it is the injury to the possession of the plaintiff ... The general rule is that, unless at the time the injury ... ...
-
State v. Ratliff
...478. The inadvertent omission of words not affecting the substance of the charge or prejudicing the defendant is not fatal. State v. Burke, 108 N.C. 750, 12 S.E. 1000, cases there cited. The omission of the word "wound" in an indictment for murder was held not fatal, long before the adoptio......
-
State v. Hedgecock
...v. Taylor, 131 N.C. 714, and the indictment was held sufficient in several other cases cited in Pell's Revisal under section 3432. S. v. Burke, 108 N.C. 750; S. v. Skidmore, 109 N.C. 796, and Indeed, in State v. Little, 171 N.C. 806, 88 S.E. 723, Hoke, J., said: "As a matter of form, in res......