Case Name: STATE v. RICHARD McCLOUD
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1909-12-23
Citations: 151 N.C. 730
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. RICHARD McCLOUD.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 730–731

Head Matter:
STATE v. RICHARD McCLOUD.
(Filed 23 December, 1909.)
False Pretense — Special Verdict — Intent — Verdict Defective — Appeal and Error — New Trial.
Defendant being indicted under Revisal, 3432, the jury found, by special verdict, that a certain mercantile company issued'aluminum checks, redeemable in merchandis'e, to the laborers of'a certain lumber company whose names were furnished it by the latter company, and that defendant obtained one of these cheeks upon his false statement that he was one B., a laborer whose name had thus been furnished, and that he obtained no goods on the check. Held, no judgment on the verdict can be rendered, and a new trial ordered; the court is confined to the facts found, and there was a failure of the jury to find defendant’s intent to defraud, and also to find the facts of the agreement or arrangements existing between the mercantile and lumber companies respecting the issuance by the former of these checks.
Appeal from Peebles, JMay Term, 1909, of Beaueokt.
Tbis was an indictment under section 3432, Revisal.
. The jury returned the following special verdict: “The Clarke-Smith Company was a corporation, engaged in mercantile business at Belhaven. It issued aluminum checks to employees of the Roper Lumber Company, representing goods, and good for amount in goods named in check. Henry Boyd was a laborer for said Roper Lumber Company, and his name had been furnished by said Roper Lumber Company, as its laborer, to said Olarke-Smith Company. Defendant applied to said Clarke-Smith Company for a one-dollar check. The clerk asked the defendant his name. He told him it was Henry Boyd; thereupon the clerk furnished him a check good for one dollar and representing one dollar in goods. The clerk said he thought defendant’s conduct suspicious. The next day the defendant came back and asked for another dollar check. Clerk refused, in consequence of the fact that Boyd had been in in the meantime. No goods were furnished on the check. Defendant’s name was not Henry Boyd, and Boyd had not authorized him to call for his check. If, upon this finding, the court is of the.opinion that defendant is guilty, the jury find him guilty. If the court is of the opinion that he is not guilty, we find him.not guilty.” Whereupon the court adjudged the defendant hot guilty, and the solicitor appealed.
Attorney-General and G. L. Jones for the State.
No counsel for defendant.

Opinion:
MANNING, J.,
after stating the case: The special verdict found in this case is defective, and the facts found by the jury are not sufficient to warrant any judgment tbereon. In determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant upon a special verdict, tbe court is confined to tbe facts found, and is not at liberty to infer anything not directly found. State v. Custer, 65 N. C., 339; State v. Hanner, 143 N. C., 632, and cases cited. Tbe special verdict does not find tbe intent with which tbe defendant made tbe statements. ".Tbe intent to cheat and defraud tbe prosecutor is an essential ingredient in tbe crime of false pretense. Tbe verdict should have found that fact distinctly, the one way or tbe other; either that tbe defendant made tbe false representation witb intent to cheat, or that be made tbe statement under an honest conviction of its truth." State v. Blue, 84 N. C., 807; State v. Oakley, 103 N. C., 408. In the absence of such definite finding, tbe uniform practice is to grant a new trial. State v. Bray, 89 N. C., 480; State v. Blue, supra; State v. Oakley, supra; State v. Hanner, supra. Nor is there a finding showing under what agreement or arrangement the Clarke-Smith Company issued its aluminum checks to tbe laborers of tbe Koper Lumber Company. Tbe aluminum check was tbe promise to pay of tbe Olarke-Smitb Company, payable or redeemable in goods, as we interpret tbe verdict. We are therefore of tbe opinion that tbe judgment should be reversed, tbe special verdict set aside and a new trial bad.
Error. New trial.