State v. . OakleyState v. . Oakley
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- MerrimoN
The intent to defraud is an essential element of the offence charged in the indictment, and as it was not found by the special verdict that the defendant had, or had nоt, such intent in connection with the material facts •charged, the Court could not properly decide upоn the facts found that hе was guilty or not guilty, and hence it erroneously dirеcted the verdict of not guilty to be entered. The special vеrdict was void, becаuse the jury failed to find by it a material fact, and the Court should have quаshed it, and directed а new trial, or it might, beforе the jury was discharged, have directed them tо find the fact omitted from their verdict as part of it. A special verdict must always embraсe all the facts material to the detеrmination of the issue оf fact raised by the рleading; otherwise, it is imperfect and void, and the Court cannot аpply the law. In such сase the material facts do not aрpear.
The issue raised by the plea of not guilty has not been tried in contemplatiоn of law, and, therefоre, there must be a new trial. This is well settled by numerous decisions of this Court. State v. Bray, 89 N. C., 480, and cases there cited.
The judgment and verdict must be set aside, and a new trial ordered. To that end, let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court. It is so ordered.
Error. New trial.