Case Name: The State v. Wyatt Ballard
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1812-07
Citations: 2 Mur. 186
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Wyatt Ballard.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 186–188

Head Matter:
The State v. Wyatt Ballard.
{-From Edgcombe. J
Indictment for forgery. — The act of 1801, respecting’ forgery, took effect on the 1st April, 1801. The indictment charged that the act was done, “ against the form of the act of the General Assembly, in such case made and provided.” Motion in arrest of judgment, “ that the indictment did not charge that the crime was committed after the 1st April, 1801,” overruled.
The instrument forged was a bond, purporting to be attested by one A. B. The indictment charged that the Defendant, “ wittingly and willingly did forge and cause to be forged, a certain paper writing, purporting to be a bond, and to be signed by one C. D, with the name of him, the said C. D. and to be sealed with the seal of the said C. D.” but did not charge that the bond purported to be attested by one A. B. Motion to arrest the judgment on this account, overruled ; for nothing need be averred in the indictment, which is not necessary to constitute the offence, charged. It is not necessary that there should be a subscribing witness to a bond ; and if there be one, it is not his signature, but the signing, sealing and delivery by the obligor, that constitute the instrument a bond.
This was an indictment for forgery under the act of 1802. It charged, that “ Wyatt Ballard, late of the county of Orange, planter, on the twelfth day of No vember, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and three, with force and arms, at the county of Edgcombe, of his own wicked head and imagination, wittingly and falsely did forge, and cause to be forged, a certain paper writing, purporting to be a bond, and to be signed by one Thomas Wiggins, with the name of him, the said Thomas Wiggins, and to be sealed with the seal of the said Thomas Wiggins, the tenor of which, said false, forged and counterfeited paper writing, purporting to be a bond, is as follows :
“ On demand, the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and five, I promise to pay Wyatt Ballard, or his assigns, the full sum of one thousand and thirty dollars ; the same being for value received, as witness my hand and seal this twelfth day of November, 1803.
“Teste, “THOMAS WIGGINS, (Seal.)
“B. Lewis.55
“ with intention to defraud the said Thomas Wiggins, against the form of the act of the General Assembly, in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.” The Defendant was found guilty 3 and it was moved that the judgment be arrested, 1st, because it is plot averred in the indictment, that the offence was committed after the act was in force, on which the indictment’ is founded 3 and 2d, that it is not stated, that the forged bond purported to be attested by the subscribing witness. And the case being sent to this Court,

Opinion:
Hamiis, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the Court: As to the first reason in arrest, the act was in force from and after the first day of April 1802, and the indictment charges that the offence was committed on the 12th day of November 1803, against the form of the act. If the offence was committed against the act, it must necessarily have been committed after the act was in force 3 for if it were not, the Defendant could not be guilty of the offence, charged against him, and must have been acquitted. As to the second reason in arrest, nothing nep(j ¡je avel.re(iJ which is not necessary to constitute the offence, charged in the indictment. It is not necessary there should be a subscribing witness to a bond, and although there be one, it is not his signature, but the signing and sealing by the obligor, that constitute the writing a bond. The Indictment avers, that the writing set forth, purports to be signed and sealed by the obli-gor, which is all that is necessary to constitute flic of-fence, and bring it within the act. And although another averment might have been made with propriety, it does not follow that it ought to have been made. Let the reasons in arrest of judgment, be overruled.