{
  "id": 8614008,
  "name": "STATE v. W. B. DOWLESS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dowless",
  "decision_date": "1940-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "589",
  "last_page": "590",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 N.C. 589"
    }
  ],
  "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": "118 S. E., 6",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 760",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658095
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0760-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 S. E., 14",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631417
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0751-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S. E., 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N. C., 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613596
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0157-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 3091,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.28070532177657e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6174560756244862
    },
    "sha256": "e1a107cbd00ef6f3cc87afa1d791f0374a948cf28d1035693dfd1c4f32e02d9e",
    "simhash": "1:a265d1cf8b17fbf9",
    "word_count": 523
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. W. B. DOWLESS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, J.\nThe defendant assigns as error the ruling of the court below denying his motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nThe warrant, upon which the defendant was tried and convicted, charged that defendant W. B. Dowless did issue and deliver a worthless check, knowing that he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the bank with which to pay same, whereas the proof shows a-check issued by a corporation of which defendant Dowless was executive head, together with oral evidence that the corporation did not have sufficient funds or credit with the bank to pay same.\nWhile the terms of the statute (Public Laws 1927, ch. 62) are broad enough to cover the utterance and delivery of the check of a corporation by an officer thereof with knowledge of the falsity of the check and the insufficiency of the funds or credit of the maker, here the charge is .that W. B. Dowless, individually, .issued the check with knowledge that he (Dowless) did not have sufficient funds or credit with the bank to pay the check. The proof does not conform to the charge contained in the warrant. There is a variance between allegation and proof. S. v. Franklin, 204 N. C., 157, 167 S. E., 569; S. v. Corpening, 191 N. C., 751, 133 S. E., 14; S. v. Harbert, 185 N. C., 760, 118 S. E., 6.\nWe conclude that, on this record, the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Atiorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.",
      "II. II. Clark and Edward B. Clark for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. W. B. DOWLESS.\n(Filed 22 May, 1940.)\nIndictment \u00a7 20: Bills and Notes \u00a7 lOg\u2014\nThe indictment charged that defendant issued a worthless check knowing at the time that he did not have sufficient funds or credit for its payment. The proof was that defendant issued a cheek of a corporation of which he was an executive officer, and that the corporation did not have sufficient funds or credit for its payment. Sold: There is a fatal variance between allegation and proof, and defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit should have been allowed.\nAppeal by defendant from Sinclair, Emergency Judge, at March Term, 1940, of RobesoN.\nReversed.\nThe defendant was charged with issuing a worthless check, in violation of ch. 62, Public Laws 1921 (Michie\u2019s Code, sec. 4283 [a]).\nThe warrant charged that the defendant, with intent to defraud, \u201cdid issue and deliver to this affiant (O. K. Kittrell) a worthless check in amount of $211.79 . . ., defendant knowing at the time of issuing and delivering said check that he did not have sufficient funds or necessary credit arrangements with said bank whereby said check would be paid.\u201d\nThe check offered in evidence, and relied on by the State, was as follows:\nWhiteville, N. C., 7/24/1939.\nWACCAMAW BANK & TRUST COMPANY.\nPay to order of O. K. Kittrell $211.79. Two Hundred and Eleven and 79/100 Dollars. For Tob. barn furnaces.\nThe Dowless Tobacco Curer, Incorporated.\nBy W. B. Dowless, Pres. \u25a0& Secy-Treas.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit was denied. Verdict\u2014 guilty. From judgment imposing sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Atiorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.\nII. II. Clark and Edward B. Clark for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0589-01",
  "first_page_order": 655,
  "last_page_order": 656
}