State v. Jestes

• Decision Date: 16 May 1923
• Docket Number: 503.
• Citation: State v. Jestes, 185 N. C. 735, 117 S.E. 385 (N.C. 1923)
• Parties: STATE v. JESTES.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

117 S.E. 385

185 N.C. 735

STATE v. JESTES.

No. 503.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 16, 1923

Appeal from Superior Court, Avery County; McElroy, Judge.

J. E Jestes was convicted of forging an indorsement on a note and of unlawfully uttering the forged note, and he appeals. No error.

In the prosecution for forgery, an instruction that, if the jury were satisfied the indorsement on the note was a forgery, and that defendant had the note in his possession and obtained money from the bank on it, that raised a presumption of his guilt, and unless he rebutted they should return a verdict of guilty, was correct.

The following is a brief statement of the material facts: The defendant sold a tract of land to his brother, J. W. Jestes for $1,200, and bought a tract from W. H. Byrd for $2,000. Defendant was to pay Byrd $1,000 cash and was to secure the balance by a deed of trust on the land. The defendant testified he paid this $1,000 as follows: One hundred dollars in cash to bind the trade, $600 received from his brother and a note for $300, dated February 27, 1920, signed by his brother, J. W. Jestes, Charlie Coffey, and J. L. Fox and made payable to W. H. Byrd six months after date. The $600 payment and the note were a part of the $1,200 due the defendant by J. W. Jestes. The defendant contended that the note for $300 was sent by J. W. Jestes to W. H. Byrd, without coming into the the possession of the defendant. The state contended J W. Jestes gave the note to the defendant for delivery to Byrd, and that, instead of delivering the note as directed, the defendant indorsed Byrd's name on the note and signed his own name under Byrd's, and had the note discounted at the Bank of Banner Elk without Byrd's knowledge or consent.

The indictment contains two counts. The first charges the defendant with forging the name of Byrd as indorser, and the second with unlawfully altering the note. The defendant was convicted on both counts. Judgment was pronounced, and he appealed.

T. A. Love, of Newland, and Harrison Baird, of Elk Park, for appellant.

James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ADAMS J.

A close investigation convinces us that there is no error in the record. The first five exceptions relate to the exclusion of evidence, but neither exception can be sustained. In several instances the excluded evidence was afterwards admitted, and in the others it does not definitely appear what the answers would have been. Dickerson v. Dail, 159 N.C. 541, 75 S.E. 803; In re Edens' Will, 182 N.C. 398, 109 S.E. 269; Snyder v. Asheboro, 182 N.C. 708, 110 S.E. 84.

The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant had altered, not only the note in question, but...