State v. Shore
State v. W. T. Shore.
Opinion of the Court
Stacy, C. J.
The pleas in abatement were properly denied.
S. v. Carter, 126 N. C., 1011 , 35 S. E., 591 .
We are not now concerned with whether the State can make out its case, or with the guilt or innocence of the accused, but only with the question of venue. C. S., 4606. “Pleas in abatement, being dilatory pleas, are not favored at common law or under The Code”
— Walker, J., in Emry v. Chappell, 148 N. C., 327 , 62 S. E., 411 .
It is charged in each bill that in violation of C. S., 4268, the defendant, as agent, etc., did, in Forsyth County, on the date mentioned, feloniously embezzle the certificate of deposit described therein, with intent fraudulently to convert the same to his own use.
S. v. Oliver, 186 N. C., 329 , 119 S. E., 370 ;
S. v. Allen, 107 N. C., 805 , 11 S. E., 1016 . The charge is not that the defendant embezzled the proceeds of said certificates, but that he embezzled the certificates themselves as condemned by the statute.
S. v. McDonald, 133 N. C., 680 , 45 S. E., 582 .
The case of S. v. Mitchell, 202 N. C., 439 , 163 S. E., 581 , cited and relied upon by appellant, was decided on other facts and is easily distinguishable.
Upon the record, the defendant is subject to trial on the indictments in Forsyth County. 9 E. C. L., 1293; Annotation L. E. A., 1918E, 744.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.