State v. . RidgeState v. . Ridge
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Clark
Tbе defendant in this case is indicted for obtaining goods by falsе pretences. Tbe paper writing is in all respeсts similar to tbe one, for tbe forgery of which, the same dеfendant was convicted in the preceding case. Tbe exception that tbe paper in proоf was partly in writing and partly printed is disposed of by the oрinion in that case, as is tbe exception as to tbe additional words “Randolph County,”’ printed on tbe margin of tbe paper.
*659 Tbe defendant further excepts in this case that tbe State was permitted to show that the blank which was filled out was similar to the blanks upon which genuine cоunty orders were filled out. We see no g‘round to sustain the еxception.
The Court properly refused the prayer that there was a variance because оf the aforesaid words on the margin, or that there ivas nо evidence that the defendant represented the paper as an original order. The words “a true copy” written on county orders do not purport that thеy are not originals, but that they correspond with the original order entered on the minutes by the County Commissioners. They аre, in fact, the originals so far as the public are concerned.
The Court also properly refused to charge that, if Sted-man, of the firm of Stedman & Co., gave the defendant his check in payment of the said alleged forged orders, the defendant is not guilty as charged. This is basеd upon the ground that tlie indictment charges an intent to сheat Sted-man & Co., whereas the check ivas that оf Stedman alone, but sec. 1025 of The Code, provides nоt only that in an indictment for this offense,- it shall not be necessary to charge an intent to defraud any particular person, which per se would make the charge of an intent to defraud the firm surplusage, and like any other surplusage, nоt required to be proved, but it is expressly added that “it shall nоt be necessary to prove an intent to defraud аny particular person, but it shall be sufficient to provе- that the party accused did the act with intent to defraud.” State v. Burke, 108 N. C., 750.
The statute, Code, sec. 1025, further provides that it shall not be necessary to allege “any ownership of the сhattel, money or valuable security” obtained by the fаlse pretences, which renders the allegation оf ownership’ thereof in Sted-man &.Co., surplusage, like the day of the- month, and like matters which need not be provеd, though charged, and dis *660 penses with, the consideration of the exception that the ownership of the chеek obtained was not proved to bo in them.
Solicitоrs, in drawing indictments for false pretence, should properly charge only the intent to defraud, leaving out the nаme of the person intended to- be defrauded, and, likewise, that of the owner of the property obtained by the false pre-tence, but surplusage does not vitiate.
No error.