{
  "id": 8661384,
  "name": "STATE v. CICERO KNOTT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Knott",
  "decision_date": "1899-04-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "814",
  "last_page": "816",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. 814"
    }
  ],
  "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": "65 N. C., 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2198,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.404,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.251697488534751e-08,
      "percentile": 0.432369416131983
    },
    "sha256": "0db68510ba05b9f730be99549e761600d3678f78e5ee4c9f0700bfd634f7a2f1",
    "simhash": "1:8defcf67bc61545e",
    "word_count": 380
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:09:58.946028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CICERO KNOTT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Fatjro\u00edloth, O. J.\nThe defendant is indicated for obtaining money under a false pretence. Code, Section 1025. The Stale\u2019s witness testified that \u201clie went to' the defendant, Knott, and told him he understood he was an agent for one Franklin, who would furnish good and lawful money to any one at the rate of $10 for each $1 invested and that he after-wards on the samo day made a bargain with defendant, Knott, that, upon the payment of $21.50, the said Knott was to procure for him from said Franklin the sum of $150; that defendant, Knott, told him he had furnished money at these rates for Ogburn, Hill & Co.,\u201d and others; further that said money had not been received by him.\nDoes this evidence constitute an indictable offence under our Code ? It does not. It shows a promise to be performed in the future, but does not show a false representation of a\u2019 subsisting fact. This question ivas fully explained In State v. Phifer, 65 N. C., 325, which has been followed as a leading case. There, it was held that \u201cThere must be a false representation of a subsisting fact, calculated to deceive and which does deceive,\u201d but it does not extend to mere tricks of trade. It makes no difference whether the, prosecutor was a prudent or imprudent man, or one easily imposed upon; for, if be was deceived, it was done by a promise and not by a false representation of an existing fact.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Fatjro\u00edloth, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Moore & Sapp, for appellant.",
      "Mr. Zeb. V. Walsei\u2022, Attorney General, and Brown Shep herd, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CICERO KNOTT.\n(Decided April 18, 1899).\nFalse Pretence \u2014 The Code, Section 1026.\nEvidence of obtaining mone)' upon a false promise to be performed in the future, but which does not show a false representation of a subsisting fact, will not support an indictment under The Code, section 1035, for obtaining money under a false pretence.\nINDICTMENT for obtaining money under a false pretence, tried before Mclver, Jat November Term, 1898, of Foe-syth Superior Court.\nTbe defendant excepted to tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence to support tbe charge, and lip\u00f3n conviction moved for a new trial. Motion refused and defendant appealed from the judgment. The evidence is stated in the opinion.\nMessrs. Moore & Sapp, for appellant.\nMr. Zeb. V. Walsei\u2022, Attorney General, and Brown Shep herd, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0814-01",
  "first_page_order": 842,
  "last_page_order": 844
}