Newhanover County NcArchives Court.....William H. Harrison, State V. 1873
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Connie Ardrey n/a December 13, 2009, 9:08 am

Source: North Carolina Reports June Term
Written: 1873

State v. William H. Harrison

Where an indictment charged the forgery of the name of a firm with intent to 
defraud two persons whose names were stated, but it was not alleged that they 
composed the firm, and the testimony proved the forgery with an intent to 
defraud the firm, but is was not proved that the two persons named composed 
the firm, held that the allegations of the indictment were not proved, and 
that it was error in the count to charge otherwise.

This was an Indictment for forgery tried at the January Term, 1873, of the 
Superior Court of New Hanover County, before his Honor, Russell, J. The charge 
was for forging a due bill in the following words: "Due to William H. Harrison 
for filling of rosin and storing of spirits $50, payable 25th of August, 
[blank] Williams & Murchison, with intent to defraud one George W. Williams 
and one Daniel M. Murchison, against the form of the statute in such case made 
and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State."

On the trial a witness for the State said that he saw the defendant with the 
due bill referred to in the bill of indictment at the office or store of 
Williams & Murchison.

This or some other witness spoke of such a firm as Williams & Murchison, but 
no witness mentioned the names of George W. Williams, or Daniel M. Murchison. 
The defendant' counsel prayed the Court to instruct the jury that the State 
was required to prove the intent as charged in the bill of indictment, and 
that there was no evidence to show that the defendant intended to defraud 
George W. Williams and Daniel M. Murchison. His Honor refused the instruction, 
and said that there was some evidence to be left to the jury. The jury were 
instructed that if the State had not shown the intent to defraud the 
individuals named in the bill of indictment, the defendant was entitled to a 
verdict of not guilty, but that there was evidence (it being that above 
mentioned) to be left to the jury, and that they might infer if they thought 
proper to do so, that the individuals mentioned as a firm by the witness were 
the same as these named in the bill of indictment.

No counsel for the defendant.
Attorney General Hargrove and Solicitor Cantwell, for the State.

[NC Supreme Court]
Reade, J. The indictment charges that the defendant forged the name of the 
firm of Williams & Murchison with intent to defraud George W. Williams and 
Daniel M. Murchison. And there was evidence tending to show that he did forge 
the name of the firm with intent to defraud the firm, but there was no 
evidence that George W. Williams and Daniel M. Murchison, were the individual 
members of the firm, and therefore there was no evidence that the intent was 
to defraud George W. Williams and Daniel M. Murchison. And his Honor ought so 
to have charged the jury in response to the prayer of the defendant. His 
refusal to dos was error, for which there must be venire de novo.

Let this be certified
Per Curiam
Judgment reversed

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/newhanover/court/williamh1254wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 3.6 Kb