State v. Ward
| Decision Date | 30 June 1823 |
| Citation | 9 N.C. 443 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WARD. |
1. In an indictment, the words "false, forged, and counterfeited promissory note, commonly called a bank note, purporting to be a good and genuine bank note of $100, on the bank of the State of South Carolina," contain a sufficient averment of the existence of such a bank as the Bank of the State of South Carolina.
2. When any irregularity in forming a jury is silently acquiesced in at the time by the prisoner, and especially when he partially consents, for the sake of a trial, to such irregularity, he waives his right to except after conviction and thereby take a double chance.
3. After conviction for an offense not capital, and appeal to this Court, the prisoner is not entitled to be bailed, as a matter of right. It is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the judge before whom the appeal is taken.
APPEAL from Daniel, J., at RUTHERFORD.
Indictment for passing counterfeit money, knowing it to be such. The indictment charged that the defendant, "designing and intending to injure and defraud one Millington Patillo, with force and arms, in the county aforesaid, did pass as good and genuine, to the said Milling-ton Patillo, a false, forged, and counterfeited promissory note, commonly called a bank note, purporting to be a good and genuine bank note of $100 on the bank of the State of South Carolina, which said false, forged, and counterfeited bank note is as follows: that is to say (the paper was here set out verbatim), with an intent then and there to defraud the said Millington Patillo, he, the said James Ward, at the time he so passed the said counterfeited bank note, well knowing," etc.
The defendant was convicted before Daniel, J., and moved for a new trial, (1) Because the State's panel of jurors, summoned by the sheriff's officers on the morning of the day of trial, had been discharged by the court, and a tales jury ordered, by whom he was tried. The facts on this part of the case were that the defendant was placed at the bar and declared himself ready for trial; the solicitor declared he was not ready on the part of the State, and remarked that he should be compelled to file an affidavit for removal of the cause, because the State could not have justice done it, as there were not twelve of the original panel, and that several of the tales jurors summoned were men strongly suspected and implicated in the same species of offense with the defendant, but that he could not make it so appear as to support a challenge for cause. While he was preparing the affidavits, the court remarked that if the parties wished to try the indictment he would
discharge the tales already summoned and direct the sheriff to return another tales, giving him no direction as to whom he should return. No objection was made by either party, and the sheriff returned, on two pieces of paper, the names of bystanders summoned. The clerk called the names on one of the pieces of paper, when the solicitor observed that one of the names called was on the list of tales which had been discharged; that he had objected to it principally because of this man, and that if he was a juror he could not try. The court, not knowing that the return was on two pieces of paper, and thinking a jury might be obtained without reaching the objectionable name, ordered the clerk to call the first four names on the list; the clerk did call the first four on the other piece of paper, and they, withthe original panel, made up a jury.
Another ground on which a new trial was moved for was that the jury had taken out of court on retirement several bank notes which had been introduced in evidence to prove the note which defendant had passed a counterfeit. As to this part of the case it appeared that Colonel Erwin, cashier of the bank at Morganton, was called as a witness, and after stating that a very large quantity of the notes of the Bank of South Carolina had passed through his hands, proceeded to describe the vignettes, etc., of two-dollar bills and of one-hundred-dollar bills of that bank, and then stated that he believed this was a bill originally for $2, which had been altered to a bill for $100. He then exhibited two genuine bills of these several denominations, which the jury requested to take out with them, and, as no objection was made, did take out with them. The defendant's counsel on the trial admitted the bill in question to be a forgery, and rested the defense on Ward's ignorance of that fact.
The motion for a new trial was overruled.
It was then moved in arrest of judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Atkinson, 22
...a different conclusion in this respect from that reached by the trial judge, it has been settled in this State since as long ago as State v. Ward, 9 N.C. 443, that an irregularity in forming a jury is waived by silence of a party at the time of the court's action. There, Henderson, J., late......
-
McNeil v. State of North Carolina
...at sentencing). 2 The rule in North Carolina is that objections to the jury are waived if not timely presented at the trial. State v. Ward, 9 N.C. 443 (1823), Briggs v. Byrd, 34 N.C. 377 (1851), State v. Lambert, 93 N.C. 618 (1885), State v. Levy, 187 N.C. 581, 122 S.E. 386 ...
-
State v. Smith, 47
...nearly 150 pages of the record before us. Defendant interposed no objection to this procedure, See State v. Atkinson, supra; State v. Ward, 9 N.C. 443 (1823), and upon this record has failed to show any abuse of discretion with respect to the challenged conduct of the court. We hold, theref......
-
State v. Council
...after the verdict has gone against him. State v. Boon, 82 N. C. 637; State v. Patrick, 48 N. C. 443; Briggs v. Byrd, 34 N, C. 377; State v. Ward, 9 N. C. 443. Even where a juror is incompetent because a minor (State v. Lambert, 93 N. C. 618) or an atheist (State v. Davis, 80 N. C. 412) or n......