State v. . Chapman

Tbe first exception is to tbe court finding as a fact tbat tbe two cases against defendant made one connected story and therefore consolidated tbe cases for tbe purpose of trial. Tbe defendant contends tbat tbe consolidation was prejudicial.

Tbe case of S. v. Rice, 202 N. C., 411, 163 S. E., 112, bolds: “C. S., 4622, regulates tbe consolidation of criminal actions. This statute has been construed in many decisions of this Court. In S. v. Combs, 200 N. C., 671, 158 S. E., 252, it is written: ‘The court is expressly authorized by statute in this State to order tbe consolidation for trial of two…