State v. Cruse
| Decision Date | 30 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 507,507 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Kathryn B. CRUSE, Fred O. Cruse and Max E. Cruse. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen. and Harry W. McGalliard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Kenneth B. Cruse and C. M. Llewellyn, Concord, for defendants appellants.
On the trial it was stipulated that Fred O. Cruse, Max E. Cruse, and Kermit L. Cruse were the owners and operators of Farmers Livestock Market, doing business under that trade name; that Kermit L. Cruse did not actively participate in the operation of the business; that Kathryn B. Cruse, wife of Fred O. Cruse, 'was employed as a secretary in the office of said firm.'
The owners and operators of Farmers Livestock Market were engaged in selling livestock at auction. For this service the business received a commission computed on the selling price of the livestock. Farmers Livestock Market issued its check to the owner of the livestock so sold for the amount bid less commissions and service charges made by Farmers Livestock Market.
During the periods named in the warrants, Farmers Livestock Market carried accounts with the Bank of Rockwell and Piedmont Bank and Trust Company. It used for payment of its obligations printed forms of checks with the printed name of Farmers Livestock Market as the drawer or maker. Seven owners of livestock made sales in January and February. Each received in payment a check on the depositary bank named in the warrant. These checks bore the signature of Kathryn B. Cruse under the printed name Farmers Livestock Market. She was authorized to sign checks on the bank accounts of Farmers Livestock Market. Each check so signed was delivered to the person named in the warrant.
From the admissions and the testimony it is apparent that Kathryn B. Cruse did not give her personal check on her bank account for the livestock sold at auction, as charged in the warrants. All she did was perform the clerical task of filling in the printed forms and signing the same to authenticate the instrument as a check of Farmers Livestock Market. There is no evidence to show that she violated the provisions of G.S. § 14-107 as charged in the warrants. State v. Dowless, 217 N.C. 589, 9 S.E.2d 18. There was error in refusing to allow her motion for nonsuit.
The warrants for Fred O. Cruse and Max E. Cruse charge them with aiding and abetting Kathryn B. Cruse in drawing and delivering checks of Farmers Livestock Market on the banks named in the warrants, knowing at the time that Farmers Livestock Market did not have sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with the named banks to pay the checks on presentation.
Each warrant for Fred O. and Max E. Cruse stated facts constituting the crime defined in the second paragraph of G.S. § 14-107. The motion to quash based on the asserted failure to charge facts constituting a criminal act was properly overruled. State v. Andrews, 246 N.C. 561, 99 S.E.2d 745; G.S. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. White
...It has been applied in determining whether indictments should be consolidated when two or more defendants are involved. State v. Cruse, 253 N.C. 456, 117 S.E.2d 49; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177, 111 S.E.2d 1; State v. Bryant, 250 N.C. 113, 108 S.E.2d 128; State v. Spencer, 239 N.C. 604, ......
-
Semones v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
...knowingly putting the worthless commercial paper into circulation is the act made criminal by Section 14-107. State v. Cruse, 253 N.C. 456, 459, 117 S.E.2d 49, 51 (1960). Accordingly, the essential elements of this crime are that (1) the person charged issued a check to another; (2) such pe......
-
Nunn v. Smith, 601
...payment upon presentation. And If known to be untrue, is a false pretense. State v. Yarboro, 194 N.C. 498, 140 S.E. 216; State v. Cruse, 253 N.C. 456, 117 S.E.2d 49. Plaintiff also depends upon the criminal statute 14--106, which provides as 'Every person who, with intent to cheat and defra......
-
State v. Passmore
...of defendant's account and defendant's knowledge thereof immediately before he wrote the checks at issue in this case. State v. Cruse, 253 N.C. 456, 117 S.E.2d 49 (1960). The defendant has failed to show any prejudical error in the trial court's rulings with respect to this We hold that the......