State v. Young

• Citation: 210 N.C. 452,187 S.E. 561
• Decision Date: 23 September 1936
• Docket Number: No. 74.,74.
• Parties: STATE. v. YOUNG.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

210 N.C. 452

187 S.E. 561

STATE.

v.YOUNG.

No. 74.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 23, 1936.

Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; McElroy, Judge.

L. A. Young was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.

New trial.

F. E. Alley, Jr., of Waynesville, and Jones & Ward, of Asheville, for appellant.

A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SCHENCK, Justice.

The defendant was convicted upon a two-count bill of indictment charging him with forging and uttering a forged check purporting to have been drawn on the account of the Asheville Construction Company with the First National Bank & Trust Companyof Asheville, and, as is stated in appellant's brief, "there was no question but what the checks introduced by the State were forged. The only question was as to whether or not the defendant was the guilty party."

G. A. De Land, introduced as a witness for the defendant, was found by the court to be a handwriting expert, and, after testifying that he had seen the defendant write and had examined checks admittedly signed by him, was asked the following question and made the following reply:

"Q. I wish you would state whether or not in your opinion, having seen L. A. Young write his name and other instruments, whether or not the name, Raymond C. Williams, on the back of the alleged forged checks, is in the handwriting of L. A. Young? A. It is not, because the writing on the back of the checks is a smooth, even, fast writing, and the endorsements on all these checks show considerably more training in handwriting than L. A. Young could possibly exhibit at one time."

To the latter part of the answer giving the reasons of the witness for his opinion the court sustained an objection lodged by the state. And later in his testimony in explaining why he was of the opinion that the indorsement of the check alleged to have been forged was not in the hand-writing of the defendant, the witness testified: "I find that in the small letter 'a' there is a difference. It is written two ways, open at the top and closed at the top. There is a natural deviation. We find in specimen submitted that the 'a's' in practically every instance are closed. Once or twice we find a small opening at the top, but the tendency is toward closed. There is a certain set way of making those 'a's.'" The court likewise sustained the objection of the state to the foregoing testimony, and, upon motion of the state, struck from the record both of the quoted...