State v. Noe

• Citation: 119 N.C. 849,25 S.E. 812
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 10 November 1896
• Parties: STATE. v. NOE et al.

25 S.E. 812

119 N.C. 849

STATE.

v.NOE et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 10, 1896.

Proof of Handwriting—Standard of Comparison.

A bond given by defendant for his appearance to answer a criminal charge, and constituting a part of the record, is admissible on his trial for the purpose of comparison by an expert with a signature whose genuineness is questioned; the presumption being that the signature to the bond is genuine.

Appeal from superior court, Jones county; Graham, Judge.

Levi T. Noe and others were convicted of conspiracy to defraud, and appeal. Affirmed.

Clark & Guion, for appellants.

The Attorney General, for the State.

AVERY, J. The objection to the jurisdiction and the exception to the ruling of the court in admitting the proof of the incorporation of the insurance companies are fully discussed in State v. Turner (at this term) 25 S. E. 810. It is therefore needless to repeat the reasons for holding as we did upon assignments of error which are identical with those relied on in this case.

Where the genuineness of the paper or the signature to a paper which it is proposed to make the basis of a comparison of handwriting is not denied, or cannot be denied, in the trial of the action, an expert witness may, in the presence of the jury, compare with it another paper or signature, whose genuineness is questioned. Tunstali v. Cobb, 109 N. C. 316, 14 S. E. 28; Croom v. Sugg, 110 N. C. 259, 14 S. E. 748; State v. De Graff, 113 N. C. 693, 18 S. E. 507. Under this rule the signatures to affidavits or pleadings filed in the cause by a party, or to a paper offered in evidence by the person whose signature is in question, and that of a testator to a will purporting to have been signed by him, in an action brought against the executor appointed and qualified thereunder, or a written contract the execution of which by the testator is denied, have been held to be proper standards of comparison to be used by such witnesses in their testimony before the jury. Tunstali v. Cobb and State v. De Graff, supra. The paper writing admitted as a standard of comparison was the bond, constituting a part of the record in the case, for the appearance of the defendant Fisher to answer this charge. The bond constituted a part of the record, was presumed to be genuine, and a judgment nisi on his default could have been rendered against him and his sureties on it, and made final on his failure to take the burden upon himself, and show it spurious on the return of notice...