State v. . Lytle
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Forgery, tried before Cannon, I;, at Fall Term 1869 of Botcombe Court. The 'defendant had brought suit against his wife, M. L. Lytle, for divorce, and in the course of such suit had given as a prosecution bond, the instrument for the forgery of which he was indicted.
Read the full summary
Forgery, tried before Cannon, I;, at Fall Term 1869 of Botcombe Court. The 'defendant had brought suit against his wife, M. L. Lytle, for divorce, and in the course of such suit had given as a prosecution bond, the instrument for the forgery of which he was indicted. The points upon which the decision of the case turns, render it necessary to state only that the indictment contained two counts, and charged that the defendant: 1. Did forge “ a certain bond and writing obligatory, which was placed as a prosecution bond, upon the process in a suit in the Superior Court of Law of said county, in…
1Opinion of the Court
Rodmaít, J.
In every indictment for forgery the instrument alleged to be forged must be set forth according to its tenor, in order that the court may see that it is one which (if the indictment be under a statute, as in this case) is within the statute. Our statute (Bey. Code, ch. 34, sec. 59) embraces all bonds. The indictment in this case, in the first count, describes the forged instrument as “ a certain bond and writin g, obligatory, which was placed, as a prosecution bond, upon the process in a suit in the Superior Court of Law of said county, in which M. P. Lytle was plaintiff, and Mary…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. HelmsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- State v. ColemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Miller v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
- State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970