Case Name: STATE v. VERNON ESTER
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1957-10-30
Citations: 247 N.C. 91
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. VERNON ESTER
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 247
Pages: 91–91

Head Matter:
STATE v. VERNON ESTER
(Filed 30 October, 1957)
Appeal by defendant from Armstrong, J., August Term 1957 of Wilkes.
The defendant was tried upon three bills of indictment which were consolidated for the purpose of trial. One bill of indictment, No. 139, charged that Vernon Ester on 15 April 1957 did unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously carnally know and abuse Emma Jean Ester, a female child over twelve years and under sixteen years of age, who had never before had sexual intercourse with any person, he being a male person over eighteen years of age. The other two bills of indictment were numbered 139-A and 139-B.
It was charged in bill No. 139-A that Vernon Ester on the 15th day of April 1957, and in bill No. 139-B that Vernon Ester on the 18th day of April 1957, did unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously have carnal intercourse with Emma Jean Ester, his daughter, knowing at the time that the relationship of father and daughter existed.
The State and the defendant offered evidence. It is disclosed by the State’s evidence that Emma Jean Ester was born out of wedlock and that the defendant later married her mother. The evidence also tends to show that the defendant had claimed to be her father.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to the crime of carnal knowledge of a female child as charged in bill of indictment No. 139, but not guilty of incest as charged in bills of indictment No. 139-A and No. 139-B.
From the judgment imposed, the defendant appeals, assigning error.
Attorney General Patton, Assistant Attorney General Mc-Galliard, for the State.
Larry S. Moore, for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We have carefully considered the evidence disclosed by the record, and it was amply sufficient to take the case to the jury on the charge contained in the bill of indictment designated No. 139.
We have also carefully examined each exception and assignment of error, and reached the conclusion that they fail to point out prejudicial error. Hence, the verdict and judgment of the court below will not be disturbed.
No error.