State v. Norman

• Decision Date: 26 April 1892
• Citation: 14 S.E. 968,110 N.C. 484
• Parties: STATE v. NORMAN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

14 S.E. 968

110 N.C. 484

STATE v. NORMAN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 26, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Beaufort county; BROWN, Judge.

William Norman was convicted of obtaining advances with intent to cheat and defraud, and appeals. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by CLARK J.:

The defendant is charged with violating chapter 444, Acts 1889 amended by chapter 106, Acts 1891, which as amended provides "If any person, with intent to cheat or defraud another shall obtain any advances in money, provisions, goods, wares, or merchandise of any description, from any other person or corporation, upon and by color of any promise or agreement that the person making the same will commence or begin any work or labor of any description for said person or corporation from whom said advances are obtained, and said person so making said promise or agreement shall unlawfully and willfully fail to commence and complete said work according to contract, without a lawful excuse, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days." The affidavit and warrant were as follows: "J. R. Beasley, being duly sworn, etc., says that at and in said county, and in Bath township, on or about the 24th day of October, 1891, William Norman did unlawfully and willfully obtain advances from me by false pretense for the amount of $2.09, by promising me to work to settle the same, and failed to comply against the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and contrary to law, and against the peace and dignity of the state. [Signed] J. R. BEASLEY. To any constable or other lawful officer of Beaufort county, greeting: You are forthwith commanded to arrest William Norman, and him safely keep, so that you have him before me at my office in Bath, or some other magistrate in said county, immediately, to answer the complaint and be dealt with as the law directs. Given under my hand and seal this 26th day of October, 1891. [Signed] J. S. MARSH, J. P." The defendant was convicted before the justice of the peace, and fined three dollars, and appealed to the superior court. In that court leave was granted to amend the warrant. This was executed by amending the affidavit so that it read as follows, (the additional words are in italics:) "J. R. Beasley, being duly sworn, complains, and says that at and in said county, and in Bath township, on or about the 24th day of October, 1891, William Norman did unlawfully and willfully obtain advances from me, by false pretense, to the amount of $2.09, meat, flour, money, by promising me to work to settle the same, and failed to comply. The defendant, William Norman, on the 24th day of October, in Beaufort county, unlawfully, with intent to cheat and defraud J. R. Beasley, did obtain from said Beasley one dollar in money, one pound of flour, and other advances, upon and by color of his promise then and there made to said Beasley that the said Norman would begin work for the said Beasley to pay for said advances, and then and there unlawfully and willfully did fail to begin and complete said labor according to said contract, without lawful excuse, contrary to the statute, against the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and contrary to law, and against the peace and dignity of the state. [Signed] J. R. BEASLEY." Warrant as above. The defendant excepted because the justice of the peace was not present, and because the prosecutor did not swear to the warrant after it was amended. The prayer for instruction (which was refused) and the charge of the court are stated in the opinion. Verdict of guilty. Defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the statute for the violation of which the warrant was issued was unconstitutional and void, as being in violation of article 1, § 16, of the constitution, forbidding imprisonment for debt. Motion denied. Exception by defendant. Judgment. Appeal.

Chas. F. Warren, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

CLARK J., (after stating the facts.)

Code, § 908, provides that in any proceeding begun before a justice of the peace, whether in a civil or a criminal action the court in which such action shall be pending "shall have power to amend any warrant, process, pleading, or proceeding in such action, either in form or substance," and either before or after judgment. It is held that the section confers "unrestricted power of amendment" in such cases, provided the amendment does not change the nature of the offense intended to be charged. State v. Vaughan, 91 N.C. 532. "Any amendment may be made that perfects the charge of the offense, whether such amendment affects the form or the substance," provided it does not "charge an entirely different offense, in substance, from that at first intended." State v. Crook, 91...