State v. Burgess
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for larceny, tried before bis Ilonor Judge Cannon, at Fall Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Clay county. The defendant was charged with the larceny of a pair of shoes, the property of Joshua Brooks.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for larceny, tried before bis Ilonor Judge Cannon, at Fall Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Clay county. The defendant was charged with the larceny of a pair of shoes, the property of Joshua Brooks. Henry Brooks, a witness for the State, testified that a pair of ladies’ shoes, the property in qnestion, were taken from the shop of William Brooks & Sons, by some person, to him unknown ; that the firm of William Brooks & Sons was composed of William Brooks, Joshua Brooks and himself. On cross-examination, the witness stated that the shoes belonged to one Hagler; that Hagler had…
1Opinion of the CourtReade, J.
The probata does not correspond with the aVeynt. , and that is always fatal. If one is charged with-, stealing the property of A, it will not do to prove that he¡ .stole the joint property of A and B.
It was not strictly regular to take the objection after verdict on a motion in arrest of judgment; it ought to have been, taken on the trial; but still we see from the record that there was a fatal variance between the charge and the proof, and! that the defendant ought not to have been convicted. And therefore there was error.
There is error.
Peb Curiam. Venire de novo.
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. GreeneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. EllisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2015
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
- State v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
- State v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.