State v. Moore

• Decision Date: 13 December 1892
• Citation: 16 S.E. 384,111 N.C. 667
• Parties: STATE v. MOORE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

16 S.E. 384

111 N.C. 667

STATE v. MOORE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 13, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Cumberland county; E. T. BOYKIN, Judge.

E. F Moore was convicted of receiving money under false pretenses. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

In a prosecution for receiving money under false pretenses it appeared that, on January 1st, the prosecutor gave defendant a note, which defendant discounted at a bank. Before its maturity the prosecutor received a notice from the bank that the note indorsed by defendant was due April 1st. The prosecutor gave defendant another note to renew the one due on that day in the bank. July 1st prosecutor gave defendant a third renewal note, this note being negotiable and payable at the same bank. No payment was made on either note until December, when the prosecutor made several payments to defendant, but did not ask defendant for the note until after making the last payment. None of these payments were indorsed on the note. Held, that there was no false representation of ownership of this note on the part of defendant.

Among other prayers for instructions the following were submitted by the defendant: "(1) The bill of indictment charges the obtaining of money by defendant from J. T. Ritter by representing that a certain note for $500, made by J. T Ritter to E. F. Moore, was his, (Moore's,) and that he (Moore) had a right to collect the same. By the testimony of the prosecutor, Ritter, it appears that he knew that the said note was the property of the People's National Bank, and therefore the state has failed to make out its case, and the jury should find a verdict of not guilty. (2) That it is incumbent upon the state to prove that the defendant, Moore stated to the prosecutor that he was the owner of the note and had a right to collect the same, and that the prosecutor made the payment to him on the faith of that statement, and, if the state has failed to make such proof, the verdict should be not guilty. (3) That if, upon all the testimony, the jury shall believe that the prosecutor, Ritter, knew that the $500 note of January, 1888, had been assigned and transferred to the People's National Bank by the defendant when the prosecutor made the payment to the defendant, that the said payments were not made in consequence of any false representations of defendant, and the jury should find a verdict of not guilty."

G. M. Rose, C. M. Cooke, and W. W. Fuller, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

AVERY J.

It was essential to the successful prosecution of the indictment to show that the prosecuting witness, Ritter, was induced by a reasonable reliance upon false representations made by the defendant to pay to the latter money to be applied to the gradual extinction of his note theretofore executed. The question that confronts us at the threshold of our investigation is whether the testimony of Ritter tended to prove that any false statement was made by Moore in reference to ownership of the note, which was calculated to deceive or did deceive him, and influence him to pay the money to the defendant. As well in civil actions, brought to recover of another losses incurred by false representations, as in criminal prosecutions founded upon the same species of fraud the burden is on the actor or prosecutor to show, not only the false representation, but that a reasonable reliance upon its truth induced the plaintiff or prosecutor to part with his money or property, the only difference being as to the quantum of proof. State v. Phifer, 65 N.C. 325; Walsh v. Hall, 66 N.C. 240. Hence it is that both indictments (relied upon as separate counts of one indictment) charged that the fraud was accomplished, and the money paid over to the defendant, because of his fraudulent representation...