{
  "id": 8632807,
  "name": "STATE v. W. T. SHORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shore",
  "decision_date": "1934-06-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "743",
  "last_page": "744",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 N.C. 743"
    }
  ],
  "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": "163 S. E., 581",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627020
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 S. E., 582",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 N. C., 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659339
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/133/0680-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 S. E., 1016",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 805",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275068
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0805-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S. E., 370",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N. C., 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653549
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 S. E., 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N. C., 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269922
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/148/0327-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 S. E., 591",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N. C., 1011",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8663595
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/126/1011-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3694,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.383216101058457e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3372227492799773
    },
    "sha256": "187b6aaf489a2c23cbe3cfdb993f0cda67a309a68a4fecfa6846ad748374835c",
    "simhash": "1:dabf35ae127b9169",
    "word_count": 638
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:02.537957+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. W. T. SHORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe pleas in abatement were properly denied. S. v. Carter, 126 N. C., 1011, 35 S. E., 591.\nWe are not now concerned with whether the State can make out its case, or with the guilt or innocence of the accused, but only with the question of venue. C. S., 4606. \u201cPleas in abatement, being dilatory pleas, are not favored at common law or under The Code\u201d \u2014 Walker, J., in Emry v. Chappell, 148 N. C., 327, 62 S. E., 411.\nIt is charged in each bill that in violation of C. S., 4268, the defendant, as agent, etc., did, in Forsyth County, on the date mentioned, feloniously embezzle the certificate of deposit described therein, with intent fraudulently to convert the same to his own use. S. v. Oliver, 186 N. C., 329, 119 S. E., 370; S. v. Allen, 107 N. C., 805, 11 S. E., 1016. The charge is not that the defendant embezzled the proceeds of said certificates, but that he embezzled the certificates themselves as condemned by the statute. S. v. McDonald, 133 N. C., 680, 45 S. E., 582.\nThe case of S. v. Mitchell, 202 N. C., 439, 163 S. E., 581, cited and relied upon by appellant, was decided on other facts and is easily distinguishable.\nUpon the record, the defendant is subject to trial on the indictments in Forsyth County. 9 E. C. L., 1293; Annotation L. E. A., 1918E, 744.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the Stale.",
      "E. T. Gansler, N. A. Townsend and John G. Wallace for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. W. T. SHORE.\n(Filed 20 June, 1934.)\n1. Criminal Law E e\u2014\nPleas in abatement, being dilatory pleas, are not favored.\n2. Criminal Slaw B d \u2014 Indictment held to charge embezzlement in county of prosecution, and defendant\u2019s plea in abatement was properly denied.\nAn indictment charging that defendant did feloniously embezzle certain certificates of deposit in the county in which the prosecution is instituted is held, not subject to defendant\u2019s plea in abatement on the ground that the certificates of deposit were issued by a bank in another county and that such other county was the proper venue of the prosecution, since the indictment charges the embezzlement of the certificates of deposit and not the proceeds of the certificates. C. S., 4606.\nAppeal by defendant from Alley, J., at January Term, 1934, of Eoesyth.\nIndictments for embezzlement charging that the defendant, as agent of Mrs. Maude B. Trotman, guardian, did, on 16 June, 1932, and again on 17 October, 1932, in Forsyth County, \u201cfeloniously embezzle and convert to his own use, and did take, make away with and secrete, with intent to embezzle and fraudulently convert to his own use\u201d a certain certificate of deposit of $50,000 (issued by a Charlotte bank), contrary to the provisions of C. S., 4268.\nThe defendant filed a plea in abatement to each bill and moved for quashal or dismissal on the ground that Forsyth County was not the proper venue, but that whatever was done in connection with said certificates of deposit took place in Mecklenburg County, and not elsewhere.\nUpon the bearing of these pleas, the court found, inter alia, upon the affidavits submitted, that \u201cthe two certificates of deposit described in the bills of indictment in these causes were removed from the safety deposit box by W. T. Shore and Mrs. Maude B. Trotman, guardian, endorsed by her and delivered to the defendant, W. T. Shore, in Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina.\u201d\nBy consent, it was stipulated that the court\u2019s findings of fact should be used solely for the purpose of passing upon the pleas in abatement.\nThe court refused to sustain the defendant\u2019s pleas in abatement and held him for trial in Forsyth County.\nFrom this ruling, the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the Stale.\nE. T. Gansler, N. A. Townsend and John G. Wallace for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0743-01",
  "first_page_order": 805,
  "last_page_order": 806
}