State v. Pickett.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
IkdictmeNT for obtaining a horse under Ealse Pretences tried at August Term, 1877, of New IIanoveb, Criminal Court, before Meares, J. The bill of indictment was as follows; The jurors &c., present that Joseph Pickett &c., desiring to purchase a horse of Charles B. Eutch,agreed to pay him the sum of eighty dollars; $30 cash and the balance lie would secure by a mortgage on a mule to which the title was perfectly good, and of which ■ the said Joseph Pickett was the sole and…
Read the full summary
IkdictmeNT for obtaining a horse under Ealse Pretences tried at August Term, 1877, of New IIanoveb, Criminal Court, before Meares, J. The bill of indictment was as follows; The jurors &c., present that Joseph Pickett &c., desiring to purchase a horse of Charles B. Eutch,agreed to pay him the sum of eighty dollars; $30 cash and the balance lie would secure by a mortgage on a mule to which the title was perfectly good, and of which ■ the said Joseph Pickett was the sole and only owner, as lie alleged, and also on the horse &c. And the said Pickett did then and there designedly, unlawfully and…
1Opinion of the CourtReade, J.
The indictment charges “that the defendant pretended that he was the sole and only owner of said mule, and that there was no lien or other ownership existing thereon.” There is certainly no crime in pretending that the mule was his, because it may all be true. Bufc.it is also charged that he “designedly, unlawfully and falsely pretended” it. It is not specified in what the falsehood consisted. Was he not the “sole owner?” Was there some other '• ownership, ” or partnership? Was there some “ lien ” on it? Or in ivhat else did the falsehood consist ?
The precedents are to the effect, that the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. . CarlsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- State v. . FarmerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- State v. CarlsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916