State v. Wolf
| Decision Date | 19 April 1898 |
| Parties | STATE . v. WOLF. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Forgery — Intent — Instructions — Prejudicial Error.
1. One must act with fraudulent intent to be guilty of forgery.
2. A charge that signing the name of another without authority is forgery, without stating that it must be done with fraudulent intent, is prejudicial error, though no instruction on the subject is requested.
Appeal from superior court, Cabarrus coun-i ty; Mclver, Judge.
James Wolf was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Reversed.
The jurors, etc., present that defendant, etc., did willingly, falsely, and feloniously utter, publish, and show forth in evidence as true a certain other forged, false, and counterfeited instrument in writing, purporting to be a mortgage, etc., as follows: "Dec. 4, 1897. I bought a cow from Emma Wolf, and gave her $15, and paid her $G, and gave her a mortgage on the cow for the balance, and she is a little Jersey cow with a bob tail; and I cannot write, but I told him what to write, and he did as I told him to do, and I promise to pay her on the 10th or 11th of December without fail; and I went and looked at the cow for myself, and was satisfied and willing to take her and pay for her [Signed by Mr. B. O. Atwell and Mrs. B. O. Atwell by X mark and by Emma Wolf], "— with intent to defraud, etc., contrary, etc. The evidence was that the name of the prosecuting witness was Richard O. Atwell. There was evidence tending to show that the defendant's wife, Emma Wolf, on the 4th of December, 1897, had sold to the prosecuting witness and his wife the cow described above for $15, of which $6 was paid in cash, and the balance of $9 was to be paid on or before the 10th or 11th of December; that neither the prosecuting witness nor his wife could read or write, and that the prosecuting witness and his wife authorized the defendant to sign for them a duebill for the $9 balance of purchase money; that said paper writing was written and signed without the knowledge or consent of the prosecuting witness. The court after giving the definition of "forgery" and reciting the evidence, told the jury "that if they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant signed the names of B. O. Atwell and Mrs. B. O. Atwell to the paper writing purporting to be a mortgage, without being authorized by the prosecuting witness or his wife, they should return verdict of guilty." Verdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.
W. G. Means, for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Falkner
...and this is a question of fact for the jury, under all the evidence, and not for the court. State v. King, 86 N.C. 603; State v. Wolf, 122 N.C. 1079, 29 S.E. 841; v. Martin, 141 N.C. 832, 53 S.E. 874. In this connection it may be well to observe that the next section (C. S. § 4448), dealing......
-
State v. Stroupe
...define the law he must state it correctly, and if he does not, it is prejudicial error sufficient to warrant a new trial. State v. Wolf, 122 N. C. 1079, 29 S.E. 841; Jarrett v. High Point Trunk & Bag Co., 144 N.C. 299, 56 S.E. 937; Roberson v. Stokes, 181 N.C. 59, 106 S.E. 151; Jones v. Bla......
-
Jones v. Bland
... ... unlawfulness of the act would have that tendency. And the ... principle so stated is fully recognized in this state" as in ... accord with the better considered authorities on the subject ... Ferrell v. Railroad, 172 N.C ... [108 S.E. 346] ... \xC2" ... should have been done correctly, and no prayer for ... instructions was required. State v. Wolf ... ...
-
Jones v. Bland
...the rule as to the burden of proof, it should have been done correctly, and no prayer for instructions was required. State v. Wolf, 122 N. C. 1079-1081, 29 S. E. 841; Bynum v. Bynum, 33 N. C. 632. For the error indicated, plaintiff is entitled to a new trial of the issues, and it is so orde......