State v. Skidmore
| Decision Date | 15 December 1891 |
| Citation | 14 S.E. 63,109 N.C. 795 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | State. v. Skidmore. |
Quashing Indictment for Felony.
Failure in an indictment for a felony to allege that the act was done "feloniously" is not ground for quashing the indictment, but the prisoner should be held, and the solicitor given permission to send another bill.
Appeal from superior court, Lincoln county; J. F. Graves, Judge.
Indictment of S. J. Skidmore for obtaining property under false pretenses. The indictment was quashed, and the state appeals. Reversed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by Clark,.J.:
The following is a copy of the bill of indictment: "The jurors for the state, upon their oaths, present that S. J. Skidmore, late of Lincoln county, on the 1st day of April, A. 1). 1891, with force and arms', at and in said count3', devising and intending to cheat and defraud one D. F. Aber-nethy of his goods, moneys, chattels, and property, unlawfully, knowingly, designedly did then and there falsely pretend to the said D. F. Abernethy that there was nothing wrong with a certain mule then and there belonging to the said S.J. Skid-more that the said S. J. Skidmore or any one else knew of, whereas, in truth and fact, as the said S. J. Skidmore then and there well knew, the said mule was deaf and of poor wind, which said pretense was false, and the said S. J. Skidmore well knew it to be false; that, by color and by means of the said false pretense, the said S. J. Skidmore did then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly obtain from the said D. F. Abernethy one mule of the value of $50, and $10 in money of the goods and chattels of the said D. F. Abernethy, with the intent then and there to cheat and defraud the said D. F. Abernethy, to the great damage of the said D. F. Abernethy, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."
The Attorney General, for the State.
Clark, J., (after stating the facts.) The indictment is sufficient in form, under the ruling in State v. Burke, 108 N. C. 750, 12 S. E. Bep. 1000, and State v. Dixon, 101 N. C. 741, 7 S. E. Bep. 870, and cases therein cited. We apprehend, however, though the ground is not stated, that the learned judge allowed the motion to quash because the act of 1891, c. 205, makes all offenses which are punishable by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary felonies, and the word "feloniously" is not used. State v. Purdie, 67 N. C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...sufficient in several other cases cited in Pell's Revisal under section 3432. State v. Burke, 108 N.C. 750, 12 S.E. 1,000; State v. Skidmore, 109 N.C. 796, 14 S.E. 63, others. In Rev. § 3435, it is provided as to indictments for disposing of mortgaged property: "In all indictments for viola......
-
State v. Brown
...in several other cases cited in Pell's Revisal under section 3432. State v. Burke, 108 N. C. 750, 12 S. E. 1, 000; State v. Skid-more, 109 N. C. 796, 14 S. E. 63, and others. In Rev. § 3435, it is provided as to indictments for disposing of mortgaged property: "In all indictments for violat......
-
Baker v. Norfolk & S.R. Co.
... ... been committed by the court. Knight v. Killebrew, 86 ... N.C. 400; Sumner v. Candler, 92 N.C. 634; State ... v. McNair, 93 N.C. 628; State v. Skidmore, 109 ... N.C. 795, 14 S.E. 63; State v. Dula, 61 N.C. 437 ... But here the defendant's counsel ... ...
-
State v. Callett, 507.
...the latter class of cases, have been declared fatally defective. State v. Jesse, 19 N.C. 297; State v. Roper, 88 N.C. 656; State v. Skidmore, 109 N.C. 795, 14 S.E. 63; State v. Bryan, 112 N.C. 848, 16 S.E. 909; State v. Caldwell, 112 N.C. 854, 16 S.E. 1010; State v. Wilson, 116 N.C. 979, 21......