State v. . Smith

78 N.C. 462
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1878·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Reade, J.

The indictment charges the defendant' with having forged an order for sixty dollars and seven cents. There was no evidence tending to show that he had forged an order for that amount, and of course he ought not to have been convicted.

The only evidence introduced related to two orders, — one for sixty dollars, and the other for sixty dollars and twenty seven cents.

"Whether these discrepancies between the charge and the proof really appeared on the trial, or whether they are the result of a careless record, we do not know. We are bound by the record.

One of the witnesses for the State, the Solicitor, was permitted to testify for the State without being sworn, the defendant objecting. This was error.-

Error.

Per Curiam. Venire de novo.

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

State v. . Smith, 78 N.C. 462 (N.C. 1878).

78 N.C. 462 (State v. . Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hines
243 S.E.2d 782 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)
People v. Coll
18 P.R. 355 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1912)
Pueblo v. Coll
18 P.R. Dec. 361 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1912)
State v. Taylor
50 S.E. 247 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)