State v. . Keeter

80 N.C. 472
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 80 N.C. 472 (State v. . Keeter) 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. . Keeter, 80 N.C. 472 (N.C. 1879).

Opinion

Sjiith, C. J.

The defendants are charged in the first count with the forging, and in the second count with uttering and publishing the forged instrument described in the bill, and upon their trial were both found guilty. The record shows that the verdict was setasideand from this order the solicitor appealed. The case accompanying the record states that the judgment was arrested and from this the appeal is taken for the state. Where there is a repugnancy between the record and the case stated, the record will control. Farmer v. Willard, 75 N. C., 401.

As there has been no final adjudication, an appeal does not lie at the instance of either party. State v. Wiseman, 68 N. C., 203, and other cases therein cited.

'As the exceptions taken to the sufficiency and form of the indictment must be again met upon another trial, we will dispose of them now :—

1. The form of the first count follows approved precedents, *474 3 Chit. Cr. Law, ch. 15, p. 1,049, and is not obnoxious to the imputation of duplicity.

2. There is no misjoinder, and the propriety of uniting the two counts is manifest from the proofs in the case.

3. The omission of any qualifying words after the figures in the forged order as set out in the indictment is not fatal to the indictment.

If the order was genuine, the omission of the word would not render it invalid, nor will it take away the criminality of the act of forging or uttering the instrument in the same form. Stevens v. Smith, 4 Dev., 292.

Per Curiam. Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Privette v. Privette
51 S.E.2d 925 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Union Central Life Insurance v. Bullard
178 S.E. 113 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Moore v. . Moore
117 S.E. 12 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
State v. . Wheeler
116 S.E. 413 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Burnett v. State
92 So. 521 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)
State v. . Truesdale
34 S.E. 646 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Sutton v. . Phillips
23 S.E. 264 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
State v. . Ramsour
18 S.E. 707 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1893)
State v. . Van Doran
13 S.E. 32 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)
Finlayson v. American Accident Co. of Louisville
13 S.E. 739 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)
State v. . Carlton
12 S.E. 44 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Hendricks v. State
9 S.W. 555 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1888)
McNeill v. . Lawton
1 S.E. 493 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1887)
Long v. Straus
6 N.E. 123 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Garmire v. State
4 N.E. 54 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
State v. . Saunders
90 N.C. 651 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)
State v. . Padgett
82 N.C. 544 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)
State v. . Sherrill
82 N.C. 694 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)
State v. . Hinson
82 N.C. 540 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)
State v. . Keeter
82 N.C. 547 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 N.C. 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-keeter-nc-1879.