State v. Reese

• Decision Date: 30 June 1880
• Citation: State v. Reese, 83 N.C. 637 (N.C. 1880)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. WALTER R. REESE.

83 N.C. 637

STATE

v.WALTER R. REESE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1880.

INDICTMENT for False Pretence tried at Spring Term, 1880, of BERTIE Superior Court, before Gudger, J.

The defendant was indicted in the inferior court of Bertie county for obtaining goods and money by false pretences. The bill of indictment was as follows, viz: “The jurors for the state upon their oath present that on the first day of January, 1876, in the said county one Walter R. Reese, late of said county of Bertie, designedly and with intent to defraud Henderson Pritchard and John A. Pritchard did, by unlawfully, fraudulently, designedly and falsely pretending and alleging to said Henderson Pritchard and John A. Pritchard of said county that he, the said Walter R. Reese, was the owner of a large and valuable farm with team and stock thereon in the county of Northampton in the state aforesaid which was abundant security for any advances by goods and money that the said Walter R. Reese might get from them, and upon which said representations the said Henderson Pritchard and John A. Pritchard were induced to part with their money and goods, obtain goods and money from them the said Henderson Pritchard and John A. Pritchard to the value of fifty dollars, and which said allegations were then false, and he the said Walter R. Reese well knowing the same to be then false and untrue, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state.”

The defendant's counsel moved to quash the bill of indictment: 1. Because the promise or representation was not in writing.

2. Because the property alleged to have been obtained was not sufficiently described.

3. Because the statute of limitations bars the bill as appears on the face of it.

4. Because the bill does not allege that the defendant promised to apply any article of produce or any property whatever or the proceeds to the discharge of any debt.

5. Because the law relied upon for conviction is ex post facto.

The motion was sustained and the bill quashed, from which the state appealed to the superior court of that county where at spring term, 1880, the ruling of the inferior court was reversed and the defendant appealed to this court.

Attorney General, for the State .

The defendant was not represented in this court.

ASHE, J.

There were five grounds assigned for quashing the indictment, only one of which we think is worthy of the consideration of this...