Legal Opinion

State v. . Burke

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1891PublishedCited by 8 opinions

MotioN to quash indictment, heard at January Term, 1891, of Robeson Superior Court, Armfield, J., presiding. The defendant is charged with the offence oí false pretence, in 'violation of the statute {The Code, § 1025). The indictment charges that the defendant, at, etc., “unlawfully and knowingly devising and intending to cheat and defraud of, did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, falsely pretend to J. W. McRae that a certain mule which he, the said J. M.…

Read the full summary

MotioN to quash indictment, heard at January Term, 1891, of Robeson Superior Court, Armfield, J., presiding. The defendant is charged with the offence oí false pretence, in 'violation of the statute {The Code, § 1025). The indictment charges that the defendant, at, etc., “unlawfully and knowingly devising and intending to cheat and defraud of, did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and designedly, falsely pretend to J. W. McRae that a certain mule which he, the said J. M. Burke, proposed to trade to the said J. W.' McRae was sound and worked well and would not kick, whereas, in truth and…

1Opinion of the Court

Mek&uíON, C. J.:

The indictment is not very formal and precise. There is some unnecessary repetition and redundancy in charging the offence that might well be omitted, but it serves every essential purpose. The false pretence, and the purpose to defraud thereby, are charged in the words of the statute, and clearly.

The word “said,” which, strictly, ought to appear in the indictment next before the word “mule,” at the end of the other words, “ whereas, in truth and fact,” is obviously and sufficiently implied from the connection and purpose plainly appearing. The inadvertent omission does not…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. . RamsaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  2. State v. . HefnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  3. State v. . MikleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
  4. State v. . SherrillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. . FlowersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  2. State v. . HedgecockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  3. State v. . MangumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  4. State v. . RatliffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. State v. . SkidmoreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API