State v. . Fain

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Fain

156 S.E. 141, 200 N.C. 87, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 34

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 19, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 S.E. 141 (State v. . Fain) 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. . Fain, 156 S.E. 141, 200 N.C. 87, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 34 (N.C. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Feb Cubiam.

The evidence for the State at the trial of this action tended to show that defendant was seen in the company of a young woman who had in her possession- articles of personal property, which had been stolen. There was no evidence tending to show that defendant had had said property in his possession or that he had given the same to his companion. Evidence tending to show friendly relations between the defendant and the woman, in whose possession the articles were found, was not sufficient to show that defendant broke and entered the store from which the property was stolen, that he had stolen the property or had received the same, knowing it to have been stolen. There was error in the refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment as of non-suit, at the close of the evidence for the State. For this reason the judgment must be

Reversed.

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

Feb Cubiam.

The evidence for the State at the trial of this action tended to show that defendant was seen in the company of a young woman who had in her possession- articles of personal property, which had been stolen. There was no evidence tending to show that defendant had had said property in his possession or that he had given the same to his companion. Evidence tending to show friendly relations between the defendant and the woman, in whose possession the articles were found, was not sufficient to show that defendant broke and entered the store from which the property was stolen, that he had stolen the property or had received the same, knowing it to have been stolen. There was error in the refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment as of non-suit, at the close of the evidence for the State. For this reason the judgment must be

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E. 141, 200 N.C. 87, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fain-nc-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack