State v. Lewis

Decision Date14 March 1923
Docket Number83.
PartiesSTATE v. LEWIS ET AL.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Vance County; Horton, Judge.

H. M Lewis and W. G. Padrick were convicted of a crime and appeal. No error.

The English reason against joinder of a felony with a misdemeanor, that defendant would lose the benefit of having a copy of the indictment and a special jury and of making full defense by counsel, does not apply, and different counts relating to the same transaction or to a series of transactions tending to one result may be joined, though the offenses are not of the same grade.

Criminal action tried at the October term, 1922, of the superior court of Vance county, before Horton, J., and a jury.

The grand jury returned five indictments against the defendants. In the first they are charged with the larceny of a check for $1,000, the property of the United States Fire Insurance Company, of New York, and receiving the check, knowing it to have been stolen; in the second and third, with conspiracy to defraud the insurance company; in the fourth, the defendant Lewis is charged with obtaining $1,000 from the insurance company by the false representation that his car had been stolen and the defendant Padrick with being accessory before the fact; and in the fifth, the defendant Lewis is charged with practically similar false pretenses.

The defendants did not offer any evidence. The state's evidence tended to show these circumstances: In February 1921, the defendant Lewis purchased from his codefendant Padrick a five-passenger Essex car, which was identified by its shape, chassis, color, etc. Lewis paid a part of the price and on February 14, 1921, gave his note for $704 to Padrick, who indorsed it and had it discounted by the First National Bank of Henderson. On February 8, 1921, Lewis insured the car for $1,000 against loss by fire or theft. About June 1, 1921, Lewis became a policeman in Henderson and remained on the force until about February 1, 1922. On the night the car was reported as stolen, August 25, 1921, Lewis and a man named Wooten were engaged in conversation for some time near the car. The car was missing about two hours later when Lewis went to the fire house and, after saying his car had been stolen, phoned to several towns in regard to this theft.

Sixty days later the car was in Padrick's possession. About this time Padrick sent the car at midnight to the home of a man named Pearce, who operated a repair shop or garage out in the country, to have it repaired. Next morning Pearce found that the motor would not work and had to be replaced by another. Padrick told him to take the old motor out and put in another which Padrick sent him. After it was repaired, Padrick got the car and used it until the middle of December, 1921, when he sold it to W T. Nash. While Nash had it, Lewis saw the car nearly every day. Kreidt bought it from Nash in January, 1922, and Lewis saw it frequently until the middle of May. When Kreidt asked Lewis if it was his car, he answered "No."

The detective, Davis, testified that the numbers on the car on which the defendant Lewis collected the $1,000 insurance were the same as the factory numbers of the car he found in the possession of Kreidt except the number of the motor. The detective then gave six numbers on the car taken from Kreidt, which were the same numbers as those on the car for which the defendant Lewis had obtained the insurance. As further identifying the car, R. W. Ellington testified that some time in May, 1920, he bought an Essex five-passenger touring car from Padrick, color green. He kept the car about seven months and traded it back to Padrick. In the car found in Kreidt's possession and on the button which is used to make the horn blow, the initials R. W. E. were scratched with a pin.

During the progress of these transactions, Lewis was often seen with Padrick, who kept an automobile accessory establishment. The note discounted in the First National Bank had Padrick's name as indorser and Lewis' name as maker on it.

The insurance company did not settle Lewis' claim until February 4, 1922. There are about seven or eight Essex cars around Henderson. All these cars are easily identified.

The jury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Surles
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 20 d3 Abril d3 1949
    ...492, 27 S.E.2d 113; State v. Harwood, supra; State v. Moore, 204 N.C. 545, 168 S.E. 842; State v. Talley, 200 N.C. 46, 156 S.E. 142; State v. Lewis, supra; State v. Smith, 174 804, 93 S.E. 910; State v. Driver, 78 N.C. 423, State v. McNeill, 75 N.C. 15. It harmonizes with the interpretation......
  • State v. Anderson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 20 d3 Novembro d3 1935
    ... ... the court, said: "The rule in this state now is that ... different counts relating to the same transaction, or to a ... series of transactions, tending to one result, may be joined, ... although the offenses are not of the same grade," citing ... as authority for the position, State v. Lewis, 185 ... N.C. 640, 116 S.E. 259; State v. Burnett, 142 N.C ... 577, 55 S.E. 72; State v. Howard, 129 N.C. 584, 40 ... S.E. 71; State v. Harris, 106 N.C. 682, 11 S.E. 377; ... State v. Mills, 181 N.C. 530, 106 S.E. 677. See, ... also, State v. Alridge, 206 N.C. 850, 175 S.E. 191 ... ...
  • State v. Beal
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 20 d3 Agosto d3 1930
    ... ... 190; Note, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 811 ...          In the ... first place, no objection seems to have been entered by the ... defendants to the motion of the solicitor that the four bills ... be consolidated and tried as different counts in a single ... indictment. State v. Lewis, 185 N.C. 640, 116 S.E ... 259. The defendants had already entered a plea of not guilty ... [154 S.E. 619.] ... the principal bill charging murder, and it may well be said ... that this plea applied to any and all counts, subsequently ... added thereto without objection, which related to ... ...
  • State v. Calcutt
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 21 d3 Maio d3 1941
    ...Under the statute it is even permissible to join a count for a misdemeanor with one for a felony in the same indictment. State v. Lewis, 185 N.C. 640, 116 S.E. 259. charges of distinct offenses have been joined or there has been a consolidation under C.S. § 4622, separate punishments may be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT