40 S.E. 220 | N.C. | 1901
The defendant was indicted for "uttering and publishing" a certain promissory note (set out in the indictment), knowing the same to be forged with intent to defraud, etc. There was no exception to the evidence or to the charge. It appears in the case that there was no evidence of "showing forth in evidence," and after verdict the defendant moved "in arrest of judgment," because those words are used in the bill which charges "did utter and publish and show forth in evidence." *699 The sole exception is to the refusal of the motion to arrest the judgment.
If it were essential to prove both the showing forth in evidence, as well as the uttering and publishing, still this is probably the first time that an appellant has gone on record as supposing that a variance or a defect of proof can be taken advantage of by a motion in arrest of judgment, which has till now always been restricted to errors on the face of the bill, which is in no wise deficient. 1 Bish. New Crim. Pro., sec. 1285. Besides, "an exception that there is no evidence is waived if not taken before verdict." State v. Huggins,
No error.