State v. Grant
| Decision Date | 16 December 1889 |
| Citation | 10 S.E. 554,104 N.C. 908 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | State v. Grant. |
Larceny—Indictment—Corporations.
1. An indictment for larceny from a corporation need not allege the fact of incorporation, where the corporate name is correctly set out.
2. Nor need the charter of the corporation be produced on the trial, in order to prove its incorporation. This is sufficiently proved by evidence that it carries on business as such.
Appeal from superior court, Swain county; Clark, Judge.
The defendant was indicted for the larceny of a barrel of kerosene oil, the property of the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company. In the course of the trial, the state introduced a witness who testified that he was agent for the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company at Jarratt's Station, in said county; that said company was publicly and universally known by that name, in this section, as a common carrier, operating the only railroad in the county, running daily trains, having officers, agents, etc. The defendant excepted to the admission of this testimony, because it was not alleged in the indictment that the company was incorporated, and because the proof of the incorporation should be made by showing the charter, There was a verdict of guilty. The defendant moved for a new trial on the foregoing exceptions. This motion was denied. The defendant then moved in arrest of judgment, because the indictment did not allege that the prosecutor was incorporateed. Motion refused. Judgment and appeal.
F. C. Fisher, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.
Shepherd, J. 1. We are clearly of the opinion that it was unnecessary to produce the charter in order to prove that the prosecutor was an incorporated company. In Reg. v. Langton, L. R. 2 Q. B. Div. 296, 46 Law J. M. Cas. 136, "it was held that it was not necessary to produce the certificate of incorporation of a company, but that the existence of the company was sufficiently proved by evidence that it had carried on business as such." 2 Rose. Crim. Ev. 868. To the same effect is Whart. Crim. Law, 1828; People v. Schwartz, 32 Cal.160; People v. Davis. 21 Wend. 309; Reed v. State, 15 Ohio, 217; and State v. Railroad Co., 95 N. C. 607.
2. We are also of opinion that the fact of incorporation need not be alleged, where the corporate name is correctly set out in the indictment. We are aware that there is quite a diversity of opinion upon this subject in various states, but we think the better view is that such an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carson
...... contention submits the following: (a) In other states it has. been definitely decided that even in larceny cases it is not. necessary to allege in the indictment that the owner of the. stolen property is incorporated. Territory v. Garcia, 75 P. 34; State v. Grant, 10 S.E. 554;. State v. Rollo, 54 A. 683; State v. Fitzpatrick, 32 A. 1072; Territory v. Walker, . 120 P. 336. (b) This court has decided that "it is not. necessary to the sufficiency of an indictment for burglary. and larceny from a railroad depot that it should allege. either that the ......
-
State v. Carson
...not necessary to allege in the indictment that the owner of the stolen property is incorporated. Territory v. Garcia, 75 Pac. 34; State v. Grant, 10 S.E. 554; State v. Rollo, 54 Atl. 683; State v. Fitzpatrick, 32 Atl. 1072; Territory v. Walker, 120 Pac. 336. (b) This court has decided that ......
-
Argeros v. State
...... Company as bailee was sufficient, without proving what the. company is; (State v. Watson, 102 Ia. 651, 72 N.W. 283; Thalheim v. State, 20 So. 947; Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 815.) it was not necessary to. produce the charter of the company; (State v. Grant,. 104 N.C. 908, 10 S.E. 554; State v. Collens, 37 La. Ann. 607; Reed v. State, 15 Ohio 217; Smith v. State, 28 Ind. 322; People v. Davis, 21 Wend. 309; Burke v. State, 34 O. S. 79.) proof that the. company was a corporation de facto was sufficient;. (People v. Barrick, 49 Cal. 342.) refusal ......
-
Thalheim v. State
...... specific transaction intended to be proven on the trial,. justice will not be done. The circuit judge denied the. motion. In making such order, the circuit judge stated, in. effect, that he did so because he considered that he had no. authority to grant the motion, on account of a repeal of a. former statute which the circuit judge regarded as vesting. the only power in him to authorize the action requested. The. order denying the motion for a bill of particulars was made. February 19, 1896. Afterwards, April 9, 1896, the circuit. court, in ......