State v. . ShoreState v. . Shore
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Stacy
The pleas in abatement were properly denied. S. v. Carter, 126 N. C., 1011, 35 S. E., 591.
We are not now concerned with whether the State can make out its case, or with the guilt or innocence of the accused, but only with the question of venue. C. S., 4606. “Pleas in abatement, being dilatory pleas, are not favored at common law or under The Code” — Walker, J., in Emry v. Chappell, 148 N. C., 327, 62 S. E., 411.
It is charged in each bill that in violation of C. S., 4268, the defendant, as agent, etc., did, in Forsyth County, on the date mentioned, feloniously embezzle the certificate of deposit described therein, with intent fraudulently to convert the same to his own use. S. v. Oliver, 186 N. C., 329, 119 S. E., 370; S. v. Allen, 107 N. C., 805, 11 S. E., 1016. The charge is not that the defendant embezzled the proceeds of said certificates, but that he embezzled the certificates themselves as condemned by the statute. S. v. McDonald, 133 N. C., 680, 45 S. E., 582.
The case of S. v. Mitchell, 202 N. C., 439, 163 S. E., 581, cited and relied upon by appellant, was decided on other facts and is easily distinguishable.
Upon the record, the defendant is subject to trial on the indictments in Forsyth County. 9 E. C. L., 1293; Annotation L. E. A., 1918E, 744.
Affirmed.