State v. . Banks
This text of 174 S.E. 306 (State v. . Banks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The motion for a verdict of not guilty made by the defendant should have been granted. This Court in S. v. Edwards, 190 N. C., 322, says: “It will readily be seen, therefore, that the indictment must charge both ‘insufficient funds’ and ‘insufficient credits’; for though the funds on deposit may be insufficient, the ‘credits’ — ‘the arrangement or understanding with the bank or depository’ — may be amply sufficient to protect the check or draft upon its presentation. The indictment is fatally defective in that, while charging ‘insufficient funds on deposit’ it makes no reference whatever to a want of credits; and the defect is not cured by the clause which affords the drawer an opportunity to provide funds or credits for payment upon presentation of the check or draft or within ten days after notice of nonpayment.” Moreover, there was no evidence that the defendant had failed to have an “arrangement or understanding with the bank or depository for the payment of any such check or draft.”
Error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
174 S.E. 306, 206 N.C. 479, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-banks-nc-1934.