40 S.E. 9 | N.C. | 1901
In an indictment for forgery, it is not necessary to allege loss of the instrument in the indictment, and in the absence of the instrument, only its substance need be charged. 2 McClain Criminal Law, sec. 805; Mead v.State,
The Court properly refused to charge that there was no evidence to go to the jury. Even if there had been no other evidence, the defendant being in possession of the forged instrument attempting to utter, pass or deliver it, was evidence, and the Court charged, at request of defendant, that the jury should not convict unless they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did so attempt for personal gain or a fraudulent purpose.
The evidence did not authorize the Court to give the instruction asked as to drunkenness. Voluntary drunkenness is never an excuse for crime.State v. Kale, 124 N.C. and cases cited at page 819; Howard v. State,
The absence of a revenue stamp has no bearing upon the inquiry whether the defendant forged the paper-writing, though not decorated with such stamp. 1 Randolph Com. Paper, sec. 213; State v. Hill,
The defendant excepted to the charge because of the following instructions: "(1) Where one is found in the possession of a forged instrument and is endeavoring to obtain money or advances upon it, this raises a presumption that *558
defendant either forged or consented to the forging such instrument, and nothing else appearing the person would be presumed to be guilty." In this there was no error. State v. Morgan,
No error.