{
  "id": 8651633,
  "name": "THE STATE v. JOHN S. DIXON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dixon",
  "decision_date": "1888-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "741",
  "last_page": "744",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 N.C. 741"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 663",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275383
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0663-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 635",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698152
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0635-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698737
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0751-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682219
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N. C., 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1955309
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/65/0321-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 350,
    "char_count": 6740,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2963933059975162e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6211487619548476
    },
    "sha256": "ab71f142ae3f5df40ddf2c34deea06eff25269f4bc3674d0e41d89e2b161489a",
    "simhash": "1:88ad9e5944d14f24",
    "word_count": 1133
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:51:11.114152+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. JOHN S. DIXON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Merrimon, J.\n(after stating the case.) The motion was properly disallowed. The indictment substantially and sufficiently, though not with as much fullness as is desirable, charges the defendant with having committed the statutory offence \u00f3f knowingly and designedly obtaining money by false pretence with intent to cheat or defraud, &c.\nThe statute (The pode, \u00a7 1025) prescribing and defining that offence is very broad and comprehensive in its terms and purpose. It provides that \u201c if any person shall knowingly and designedly, by means of any forged or counterfeited paper, in writing or in print, or by any false token, or other false pretence whatsoever, obtain from any person or corporation within the State any money, goods, property, or other thing of value, or any bank note, check or- order for the payment of mone}', &c., ***** with intent to cheat or defraud any person or corporation of the same, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor for fraud and deceit,\u201d &c. And it is sufficient to charge in the indictment \u201c that the party accu.-ed did the act with intent to defraud, without alleging an intent to defraud any particular person, and without alleging any ownership of the chattel, money, or valuable security,\u201d &c.\nIt will be observed that the statute designates certain kinds or classes of means whereby the offence may be perpetrated, and adds, \u201c or other false pretence whatsoever.\u201d By \u201c false pre-tence \u201d is meant false statements or representations, however made, with intent to defraud, for the purpose of obtaining money or property. If one falsely and with fraudulent design represents to another that something material\u2014 something already said or done \u2014 is true, when the same is not true, and it is calculated to mislead, and does mislead, and induce such party to part with his chattels, money or the like, surely, such false and fraudulent representations, though Wholly verbal, come within the scope of the comprehensive words, \u201c or other false pretence whatsoever,\u201d and as well within the purpose and spirit of the statute. Fraud and injury may as certainly be accomplished by false statements as to what has been said and done by others, prompting the party defrauded to part with his property, as \u201c by means of any forged or counterfeited paper, in writing or in print, or by any false token.\u201d Falsehoods simply expressed in words as to persons and what they have said or done, or desire, or as to existing conditions of persons or things, when material, and uttered with fraudulent design, constitute a fruitful means of false pretence. The words of the statute recited, \u201c or other false pretence whatsoever,\u201d taken in connection with the words and phraseology which next precede them, cannot be said to imply only like means of cheating, because the word like or some like word is not used, and the preceding words specially designate particular kinds of means employed to cheat and defraud, while the comprehensive words \u201c or other false pretence whatsoever,\u201d are intended to enlarge the kinds of means that might be so employed, and make it criminal to cheat by any means that might be denominated a false pretence.\nThe language of the statute is broad enough to comprehend cheating by means of false words expressed as indicated above, and there is nothing in the nature of their application that gives them a restricted meaning.\nThe mischief to be remedied suggests the broad meaning we give them. Why should cheating by mere falsehoods, as indicated, be omitted from the statute ?\nThe language embraces cheating by such means, and the evil to be remedied goes to show that the statute intended to embrace the same. Hence the Court said in State v. Phifer, 65 N. C., 321: \u201cWe state the rule to be that a false representation of a subsisting fact,.calculated to deceive, and which does deceive, and is intended to deceive, whether the representation be in writing or in words, or in acts, by which one man obtains value from another, without compensation, is a false pretence, indictable under our statute.\u201d State v. King, 74 N. C., 177; State v. Hefner, 84 N. C., 751; State v. Matthews, 91 N. C., 635; State v. Sherrill, 95 N. C., 663.\nIn this case the indictment charges, with sufficient aptness, that the defendant designedly and fraudulently obtained the money by falsely stating to the prosecutor that another person had sent him \u201cafter\u201d \u2014 that is \u2014 to get five dollars in money. In the nature of the matter such false representation was calculated to deceive the prosecutor; it might, not unreasonably, in the course of business do so; it is charged that it did so. The statute makes it indictable to cheat by such false pretence.\nThere is no error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Merrimon, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. JOHN S. DIXON.\nIndictment \u2014 False Pretence.\nAn indictment charged that the defendant, \u201c designing and intending to cheat and defraud C., did unlawfully, knowingly and designedly falsely pretend that U. did send him (the defendant) to O. after the sum of five dollars in money, whereas in truth and in fact the said TJ. did not send him * i:\u2018 * after the said sum of five dollars in money; by means of which false pretence he (the defendant) knowingly and designedly did unlawfully and with intent to defraud obtain from 0.\u201d five dollars, &c.: Held, that the offence of obtaining property by false pretence was sufficiently averred.\nThe statute {The Code, \u00a71025) commented on by Meeeimon, J.\nINDICTMENT for false pretence, tried before Shepherd, J., at Spring Term, 1888, of Onslow Superior Court.\nThe indictment charges that the defendant, designing and intending to cheat and defraud George Canaday, on the 15th day of August, A. D. 1887, at and in the county aforesaid, unlawfully, knowingly and designedly did, unto George Canaday, falsely pretend that one U. G. Canaday did send him, the said John S. Dixon, to him, the said George Cana-day, after the sum of five dollars in money, whereas in truth and in fact the said U. G. Canaday did not send him, the said John S. Dixon, to him, \u2022 the said George Canaday, after the sum of five dollars in money; by means of which said false pretence he, the said John S. Dixon, knowingly and designedly, did then and there unlawfully and with intent to defraud, obtain from said George Canaday the following goods and things of value, the property of U. G. Canaday, to-wit, five dollars in money, against,\u201d &c.\nThere was a verdict of guilty. \u25a0 Thereupon the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, and assigned as ground of his motion that the indictment charges no criminal offence. The Court disallowed the motion and gave judgment against the defendant, and he, having excepted, appealed to this Court.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0741-01",
  "first_page_order": 773,
  "last_page_order": 776
}