State v. . Debnam

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Debnam

146 S.E. 857, 196 N.C. 740, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 93

DecidedMarch 13, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 146 S.E. 857 (State v. . Debnam) 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.

Bluebook

State v. . Debnam, 146 S.E. 857, 196 N.C. 740, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 93 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The material charge in the indictment is this: That the defendant unlawfully and wilfully, while acting in the capacity of a member of the county board of education, voted for and authorized the purchase of school trucks, etc., from the Debnam Motor Company, a partnership, in which the defendant owned a pecuniary and financial interest. It will be noted that there is no allegation or charge in the indictment that the defendant acted in the capacity of agent for the Debnam Motor Company. The special verdict expressly finds that the defendant has no pecuniary or financial interest in the motor company, but is an employee engaged at a monthly salary. It is perfectly evident that under these circumstances the defendant was properly held to be “not guilty” upon the bill of indictment. Judgment

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cueiam.

The material charge in the indictment is this: That the defendant unlawfully and wilfully, while acting in the capacity of a member of the county board of education, voted for and authorized the purchase of school trucks, etc., from the Debnam Motor Company, a partnership, in which the defendant owned a pecuniary and financial interest. It will be noted that there is no allegation or charge in the indictment that the defendant acted in the capacity of agent for the Debnam Motor Company. The special verdict expressly finds that the defendant has no pecuniary or financial interest in the motor company, but is an employee engaged at a monthly salary. It is perfectly evident that under these circumstances the defendant was properly held to be “not guilty” upon the bill of indictment. Judgment

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E. 857, 196 N.C. 740, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-debnam-nc-1929.