Case Name: STATE v. LUCIAN THOMAS and THOMAS COLE, JR.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1947-03-19
Citations: 227 N.C. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. LUCIAN THOMAS and THOMAS COLE, JR.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 227
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
STATE v. LUCIAN THOMAS and THOMAS COLE, JR.
(Filed 19 March, 1947.)
Appeal by defendants from Burney, J., at October Term, 1946, of Lee.
Criminal prosecutions upon separate bills of indictment charging each defendant (1) with tbe larceny of $850.00 in cash, tbe property of one John C. Edwards, and (2) with feloniously receiving said sum of money, well knowing it to have been feloniously stolen, taken and carried away, —both contrary to tbe form of tbe statute, etc., consolidated for tbe purpose of trial.
Verdict: As to each defendant: “Guilty of larceny and recommend tbe mercy of tbe court.”
Judgment: As to each defendant: Confinement in tbe State’s Prison for not less than three years nor more than five years, — “tbe money in evidence to be returned to J. C. Edwards.”
Defendants respectively appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.
Attorney-General McMullan and- Assistant Atiorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.
D. E. Mclver, Jeff 'D. Johnson, Jr., and Gavin, Jackson & Gavin for defendants, appellants.

Opinion:
Winborne, J.
By means of numerous exceptions directed to tbe admission of evidence in certain instances, to tbe rejection of evidence in others, to tbe refusal to grant motions for judgment as of nonsuit, to various portions of tbe charge as given by tbe court, and to tbe failure of the court to charge as required by law, the defendants painstakingly direct an extensive and exhaustive search for error. However, after scanning every part of the record of the trial to which the exceptions relate, we are unable to find any prejudicial error. There is evidence, both direct and circumstantial, tending to support the charge of larceny and to connect the defendants with it, either as principals or as aiders and abettors. The case appears to have been tried and presented to the jury in substantial accord with well settled principles of law. And it does not appear that any request was made for more elaborate instruction. Hence, a discussion of the exceptions seriatim would serve no useful purpose.
In the judgment below, we find
No error.