State v. Peterson.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for forgery against L. R. Peterson, heard by Judge W. B. Council and a jury, at July Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Catawba County. From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.
In an indictment for forgery, it is not necessary to allege loss of tbe instrument in tbe indictment, and in tbe absence of tbe instrument, only its substance need be charged. 2 McClain Criminal Law, sec. 805; Mead v. State, 53 N. J., 601; People v. Badgely, 16 Wend., 53; State v. Callahan, 124 Ind., 364, tbongb it would be better practice in sucb cases to aver tbe loss of tbe instrument, or that it is in defendant’s possession. Tbe instrument being shown to be lost, tbe witness stated be could not give tbe entire contents of tbe note verbatim, but could give its substance. This was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. BadgleyNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- State v. LowryWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
- Howard v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1896
- State v. HillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Commonwealth v. SnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. HelmsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- State v. WaterburySupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- State v. EarleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
- Commonwealth v. AronsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Denis v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1926
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.