The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-10-04
Supreme Court Sustains
Bank Wrecker's Sentence
DIGESTS OF OPINIONS.
Dewey Opinion by Chief Iustice---Ius
tice Hoke Dissents On Ground
That Any Oral Charge is Err
ror When Written Charge
Requested.

The one case of State interest, the
decision of which was made known in
the opinions handed down by the Su-
preme Court yesterday was that of
state VS.. Dewey, from Craven, in
which the judgment of the lower
court was affirmed.
Dewey, who for a long time was "a
fugitive from the State. was convicted
in the Superior Court last spring and
sentenced to SIX years iii the peniten-
tiary for wrecking the Merchants and
~ I'll IQerS Dank "a New Eern Two or
three years ago.
His defalcation amounted in the
&gSI esaLe 10 more IMAM one hundred
thousand dollars.
The opinion Is written by the Chief
Justice. The GROUNDS of appeal have
been heretofore fully reported, at the
time OF the dockeung OF the appear
and after the argument in the Su-
preme Court.
A digest OF Judge Clark's opinion in
the case and OF oIner opinions
handed down Iollow below:
Digest of Opinions:
State vs.. DeWey, Clark, c., j. No
Error. noke, D.. Dissvnts.
Heidi l. Inc refusal OIL d bill oil
particulars is not appeaiable except
Tor gross abuse.
= even If appeal lay, it could not
be taken exceol oil exception and APP
peal lron Ilnal luogmcnl.
). me re1usa AoI che Court to grant
continuance is not renewable.
t. vvuen Ine Jadse Is requested to
puC ms charge INTO writing the statute
requiring hIm 10 do so appllcs oniy to
me Jaw IN the case and does not apply
10 Il review OF the evidence or 10 tnc
general duties OF the jury.
.. where Ine Jul- came into court
and asked the Judge tor furtnet ln-
otrucuono ana he tUId rneIn ne cOulu
not help lnem ITS 10 tHe facts, que
would be Sldd to instruct tnCm as to
the law; that 1t was theIr duty To
reconcile the facts IL theI coulu, anu,
II lney cOuId not TO Ike the most
plausible view. and uefenuanI > CouI-
SCI maze no objection 10 the use OL
the WOru i'pIauSl OIe Dut called the at
,entiOn of lne Court 20 the Idct tnat
lie had omitted 10 charge me jury as
ta the reasonable doubt as anccting
the fraudulent intent Whereupon the
/. udge CaIleu the jury back and re-
pedIed what he na4 said with the cor
rectiOn asked by counsel, telnnS them
,nat tne state must satisfy them be-
yond 1t reasonable doubt as to the
criminal intent d. The tIIl4e o. the mis-
dDDIODEIdllOtl
read his charge again ana the spCcIa.
instructions asKeu by the defendant
i'll which there WAS no error; heIu.
mat the defendant was not preJu-
ulced
b. The Court calls attention to the
fact that a letter or the deIenuant was
III evidence and before the Court III
the records written by hIIn When Il
fugitive from justice i'll which lie
t. The Court condemned the irreG-
ularity or sendng up appellant $ case
on appeal in the recoru, noldlng tndt
1t couId not consider it since the case
on appeal mad been settled after dlS-
agreement by the Judge.
justice no.1e MED d snort opinion in
dissent on the ground that any oral
cnarge after request that the charge
be put i'll writing was error.
>. y. King V. T. \. Hobbs, Appellant,
John ID. Kerr, for Appellant; 4. X.
Cooper, Tor AppeiIee. HOke, j.
Affirmed.
When one who had previously sold
a certain class OF timber on land,
for whicn he had given registered
deed afterwards made to tfOrd
party a BOND to make title Tor tHt
Iand, with covenant against encum-
branceS and there was evidence tnat
the facI os TO the sale OF the TIMBER
was known to the parties but omitted
from the bond TO MAKE the ute
through mutual mistake.
ttcId: l. That such evidence was
properly submitted to the jury, since
under the rule the inquiry is to de-
ternine the mutual intent OF the par
ties and u mistake III 80 exp es-l-I3
such an intent is not equivalent to an
essentl.tL tn1srake or mas unueI standing
of the agreement ltselI
2. Where there is evidence OF this
character II is required to be submit
ted 10 the Jury under Instructions
from the Court that in order TO affect
the EXPRESS terms OF the instrument
il must be 'clear. strong and con-
Vincing" in character.
State Y J. VI. Lucas. appellant. L. X.
Cooper. for Appellant; Attorney
General for the state. Walker, j.
No Error.
Where defendant was tried be-
fore a Justice of the peace upon war
rant Charging with serious damage
and he and his witnesses bound over
Held: That under Code, Sections
S95. 1I52 1856. and 1857, defining the
duties of magistrates IN such cases, his
power and jurisdiction had ceased and
he was i'm certain sense functus
of1icio.
J. b. Outlaw. Admir-, appellant, v. j.
j. Garner. Admir-. Grady * Gra-
ham. for Appellant II, Ii, Parker,
,Jr. nd rhad Jones, for Appellee.
CIark. g.. j. no Error.
PLAINTIFFS ittestate was by the terms