State v. Weaver
| Decision Date | 31 August 1852 |
| Citation | 13 Ired. 491,35 N.C. 491 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. A. B. WEAVER. |
Where a genuine instrument is altered, so as to give it a different effect, the forgery may be specially alleged, as constituted by the alterations, or the forgery of the entire instrument may be charged.
An indictment for forgery of an instrument, professing to set it out according to its tenor, should give the names, in describing the instrument, spelt as they appear spelt in the original.
The decision of the Judge below, as to the question what the instrument contains, to be decided by inspection, cannot be reviewed in this Court.
Whether a witness, who has been examined, shall be re-examined, is a question of discretion for the Judge below and from his decision no appeal lies.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Buncombe County, at the Spring Term, 1852, his Honor Judge MANLY presiding.
Attorney General for the State .
N. W. Woodfin and Bynum for the defendant .
The defendant was indicted for forging a certain bond, of which the tenor is given, as follows:
“By the fifteenth of November next I promise to pay John Carter fifteen dollars as witness my hand and seal this 24th day of September 1839.
ALX'R. BRADLEY [L. S.]”--
with the intent to defraud one Alx'r. Bradley. On the trial, the instrument was produced and evidence given, that Alexander Bradley executed it, as a bond bearing date the 24th of September, 1838, and that he afterwards made a payment on it and took Carter's receipt therefor, expressed in part of his bond, describing it therein as bearing date 24th September, 1838, and that the prisoner, for the purpose of defeating the operation of the receipt, as evidence of a payment on the bond given by Bradley, altered the date from 1838 to 1839.
The counsel for the prisoner objected, that the instrument produced varied from that set forth in the indictment because its date was not 1839, but was still 1838. But the date appearing to the Court on inspection to be 1839, the objection was overruled and the instrument was submitted to the jury. The counsel further insisted, that the evidence of the alteration did not support the charge of forging the whole instrument. But the Court held the contrary and so informed the jury. The counsel further objected, that there was a variance in the manner of writing the name of Bradley in different parts of the bill, which was fatal. But the Court was of a contrary opinion....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cochran v. State
...by the alteration, or the forgery of the entire instrument may be alleged. As altered, it is a forgery of the whole (State v. Weaver, 13 Ired. [35 N. C.] 491). We think, therefore, that the objection in this respect was properly In State v. Maxwell, 47 Iowa, 454, it is said: "The forgery co......
-
Meadows v. State
...demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained. Bish. Crim. Pro. §§ 356, 357, 358, and cases cited; Ib. § 373; Bish. Cr. Law, 535; 13 Ired. 491; 58 Mo. 256; Ark. 248. The indictment should have alleged the change to have been made without the knowledge or consent of the party making ......
-
State v. Andrews
... ... have been forged, the charge is sustained by proof of the ... forgery of any material part of same. [2 East, Pleas of the ... Crown, 979; Comm. v. Butterick, 100 Mass. l. c. 18; ... State v. Gardiner, 23 N.C. 27; State v ... Weaver, 35 N.C. 491.] ... There ... need be little room for a discussion of the question as to ... whether the endorsement of Henry Reece's name on the ... check rendered it a material part of same. He was the payee ... named therein. Under the law of negotiable instruments, the ... ...
-
State v. Andrews
...of any material part of same. 2 East, Pl. Cr. 979; Comm. v. Butterick, 100 Mass. loc. cit. 18; State v. Gardiner, 23 N. C. 27; State v. Weaver. 35 N. C. 491. There need be little room for a discussion of the question as to whether the indorsement of Henry Reece's name on the check rendered ......