TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. McCloud

State v. Richard McCloud.

State v. McCloud, 66 S.E. 568 (N.C. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 23, 1909
Judges
Manning
Citations
66 S.E. 568151 N.C. 7301909 N.C. LEXIS 357
Cited by 4
Headnotes
False Pretense — Special Verdict — Intent — Verdict Defective — Appeal and Error — New Trial. Defendant being indicted under Revisal, 3432, the jury found, by special verdict, that a certain mercantile company issued'aluminum checks, redeemable in merchandis'e, to the laborers of'a certain lumber company whose names were furnished it by the latter company, and that defendant obtained one of these cheeks upon his false statement that he was one B., a laborer whose name had thus been furnished, and that he obtained no goods on the check. Held, no judgment on the verdict can be rendered, and a new trial ordered; the court is confined to the facts found, and there was a failure of the jury to find defendant’s intent to defraud, and also to find the facts of the agreement or arrangements existing between the mercantile and lumber companies respecting the issuance by the former of these checks.
Summary
Appeal from Peebles, JMay Term, 1909, of Beaueokt. Tbis was an indictment under section 3432, Revisal. . The jury returned the following special verdict: “The Clarke-Smith Company was a corporation, engaged in mercantile business at Belhaven. It issued aluminum checks to employees of the Roper Lumber Company, representing goods, and good for amount in goods named in check. Henry Boyd was a laborer for said Roper Lumber Company, and his name had been furnished by said Roper Lumber Company, as its laborer, to said Olarke-Smith Company. Defendant applied to said Clarke-Smith Company for a one-dollar check. The clerk asked the defendant his name. He told him it was Henry Boyd; thereupon the clerk furnished him a check good for one dollar and representing one dollar in goods. The clerk said he thought defendant’s conduct suspicious. The next day the defendant came back and asked for another dollar check. Clerk refused, in consequence of the fact that Boyd had been in in the meantime. No goods were furnished on the check. Defendant’s name was not Henry Boyd, and Boyd had not authorized him to call for his check. If, upon this finding, the court is of the.opinion that defendant is guilty, the jury find him guilty. If the court is of the opinion that he is not guilty, we find him.not guilty.” Whereupon the court adjudged the defendant hot guilty, and the solicitor appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Manning

MANNING, J., after stating the case: The special verdict found in this case is defective, and the facts found by the jury are not *731 sufficient to warrant any judgment tbereon. In determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant upon a special verdict, tbe court is confined to tbe facts found, and is not at liberty to infer anything not directly found.

State v. Custer, 65 N. C., 339 ;

State v. Hanner, 143 N. C., 632 , and cases cited. Tbe special verdict does not find tbe intent with which tbe defendant made tbe statements. “.Tbe intent to cheat and defraud tbe prosecutor is an essential ingredient in tbe crime of false pretense. Tbe verdict should have found that fact distinctly, the one way or tbe other; either that tbe defendant made tbe false representation witb intent to cheat, or that be made tbe statement under an honest conviction of its truth.” State v. Blue, 84 N. C., 807 ;

State v. Oakley, 103 N. C., 408 . In the absence of such definite finding, tbe uniform practice is to grant a new trial.

State v. Bray, 89 N. C., 480 ;

State v. Blue, supra; State v. Oakley, supra; State v. Hanner, supra.

Nor is there a finding showing under what agreement or arrangement the Clarke-Smith Company issued its aluminum checks to tbe laborers of tbe Koper Lumber Company. Tbe aluminum check was tbe promise to pay of tbe Olarke-Smitb Company, payable or redeemable in goods, as we interpret tbe verdict. We are therefore of tbe opinion that tbe judgment should be reversed, tbe special verdict set aside and a new trial bad.

Error. New trial.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1910: 11914: 21964: 119102026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Ellis137 S.E.2d 840 (N.C. 1964)
  2. State v. Fenner80 S.E. 970 (N.C. 1914)
  3. State v. Colonial Club69 S.E. 771 (N.C. 1910)
  4. State v. Allen80 S.E. 1075 (N.C. 1914)

Most recent

  1. State v. Ellis137 S.E.2d 840 (N.C. 1964)
  2. State v. Allen80 S.E. 1075 (N.C. 1914)
  3. State v. Fenner80 S.E. 970 (N.C. 1914)
  4. State v. Colonial Club69 S.E. 771 (N.C. 1910)

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.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Blue, 84 N.C. 807 (1881) 17
State v. Oakley, 9 S.E. 575 (N.C. 1889) 8
State v. Bray, 89 N.C. 480 (1883) 14
State v. Custer, 65 N.C. 339 (1871) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list