Case ID: nc_78/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Reade, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. ISAAC H. SMITH.
    
      Indictment — Forgery —Evidence—Testimony of Soliei'or.
    
    1. On the trial of an indictment for forgery, charging the defendant with having forged an order for $60.07, evidence that the defendant had forged an order for any other amount, is not admissible.
    2. It is error to permit the Solicitor for the State to testify in a criminal trial without being sworn.
    IndictmeNt for Forgery tried at Spring Term, 1877, of Craven Superior Court, before Moore, J.
    
    No statémenfc of the facts is necessary to an understanding of the opinion of this Court as delivered by Mr. Justice Reade. Verdict of Guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.
    
      Attorney General, for the State.
    
      Mr. M. DeW. Stevenson, for the defendant.
   Reade, J.

The indictment charges the defendant' with having forged an order for sixty dollars and seven cents. There was no evidence tending to show that he had forged an order for that amount, and of course he ought not to have been convicted.

The only evidence introduced related to two orders, — one for sixty dollars, and the other for sixty dollars and twenty seven cents.

"Whether these discrepancies between the charge and the proof really appeared on the trial, or whether they are the result of a careless record, we do not know. We are bound by the record.

One of the witnesses for the State, the Solicitor, was permitted to testify for the State without being sworn, the defendant objecting. This was error.-

Error.

Per Curiam. Venire de novo.