State v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 23 December 1897
• Citation: 28 S.E. 469,121 N.C. 604
• Parties: STATE v. MATTHEWS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

28 S.E. 469

121 N.C. 604

STATE v. MATTHEWS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 23, 1897

Appeal from superior court, Moore county; Coble, Judge.

J. M Matthews was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The principal witness for the state, Mrs. J. A. Munn (Moore) testified that at the time of the trial her husband was dead.

W. E Murchison, for appellant.

Atty Gen. Walser, for the State.

CLARK J.

This was an indictment for obtaining goods under false pretenses (Code, § 1025); and the only exception is that the judge refused to charge, as prayed, "that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the charge." In the evidence sent up, it appears, inter alia, that the principal witness for the state testified that: "The defendant claimed to be an agent for the Electropoise. My husband promised and agreed to take one. The defendant came to my house on Monday evening, and wanted to borrow horse and buggy to go to Jonesboro for it on Tuesday morning, and said he would have to have $25 to get it out of the express office. *** When he came back he said it had not come yet. *** Defendant said he wanted $25 to get the Electropoise out of the express office that it was at Jonesboro. Never got the Electropoise, and never got any of the money back." On cross-examination she said: "The defendant came, and said he must have $25 to get it out of the express office at Jonesboro. He talked like it was in the express office. *** At the time he [her husband] paid defendant $25, defendant said, 'I must have $25 now, before I get it out of the express office."' The evidence was properly left to the jury, in a very careful charge, by the court, who explained to them that the state must satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that the defendant represented to J. A. Moore, as charged in the indictment, that there was an Electropoise in the express office at Jonesboro; (2) that the $25, if obtained, was obtained on that representation; (3) that the representation was false; and (4) was made with intent to defraud; and (5) thereby said Moore was defrauded (State v. Phifer, 65 N.C. 321),--but, if either of said ingredients was not proved, they should find the defendant not guilty. The court further instructed the jury that the false representations must have been of the subsisting fact, and that, if the defendant represented that the Electropoise would be at Jonesboro, he...