State v. . George Henderson
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This -was an indictment for larceny, tided before Watts, Judge, at Fall Term 1871, of Wake Superior Court. The charge ivas that the defendant had stolen “one United. State’s Treasury note, issued by the Treasury Department of the United States of the denomination of fifty dollars,” &e.
Read the full summary
This -was an indictment for larceny, tided before Watts, Judge, at Fall Term 1871, of Wake Superior Court. The charge ivas that the defendant had stolen “one United. State’s Treasury note, issued by the Treasury Department of the United States of the denomination of fifty dollars,” &e. The prosecutor stated that he was in conversation with a stranger at the market-house in Raleigh, that the stranger proposed that they should go on a street parallel with Fayetteville street, so as to get into a show. That after getting round on the street the stranger pulled out what is known as a tobacco box…
1Opinion of the Court
PeaRSON, O. J.
There is no error. I had indulged the hope that in the opinion, State v. Deal, 64 N. C., 270, and in the opinion, State v. Shelton, 65 N. C., 294. The distinction between a mere trespass and a forcible trespass on the 'one side, and simple larceny and robbery on the other, was so plainly set out, as to put an end to the question. So as not only to enable the Judges in the Superior Courts to act upon the distinction, as His Honor, Judge Watts did'in this case, but also to satisfy the attorneys, that if men by stealth or by force with a feloneous intent, took and carried away the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. . DealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
- State v. . SheltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. . LyerlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- State v. . FisherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874