{
  "id": 8559751,
  "name": "STATE v. KENNETH A. BEAVER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Beaver",
  "decision_date": "1965-12-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "115",
  "last_page": "117",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 N.C. 115"
    }
  ],
  "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. 2d 393",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 211",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625367
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0211-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 S.E. 2d 355",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N.C. 812",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11309900
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0812-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.C. 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8695409
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/81/0542-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 6025,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.339701094470699e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2729792354689405
    },
    "sha256": "aaab414bfc0d894eeacd6dd77f4721704e5a63b92c07001030c6c566ba287d74",
    "simhash": "1:22c76aa3cb0a09fa",
    "word_count": 1039
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:51.556627+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. KENNETH A. BEAVER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CuRiAM.\nG.S. 14-107 provides: \"It shall be unlawful for any person * * * to draw, make, utter or issue and deliver to another, any check * * * on any bank * * * knowing at the time of the making, drawing, uttering, issuing and delivering such check * * * that the maker or drawer thereof has not sufficient funds on deposit in- or credit with such bank * * * with which to pay the same upon; presentation.\u201d\nThe defendant\u2019s contention that the warrants do not allege that he delivered the check has no merit. The word \u201cpass\u201d when used in connection with a negotiable instrument means to deliver, to circulate, to hand from one person to another. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary; The Century Dictionary; Webster\u2019s New International Dictionary. The Negotiable Instrument Law, G.S. 25-1, provides: \u201c \u2018Issue\u2019 means the first delivery of the instrument * * Black\u2019s Law Dictionary states that the verb \u201cissue\u201d when used with reference to notes and similar papers, which would include a check, imports delivery to the proper person. The same authority defines \u201cutter\u201d as \u201cto put or send (as a forged check) into circulation.\u201d It is not neces-r sary that the warrant use the exact words of the statute, it being sufficient if words of equivalent import are used. State v. Heaton, 81 N.C. 542. Thus, in State v. Levy, 220 N.C. 812, 18 S.E. 2d 355, the defendant was convicted of violating G.S. 14-107 under a warrant charging that he \u201cdid wilfully, maliciously and unlawfully give\u201d a worthless check. The motion in arrest of judgment is, therefore, denied.\nUpon a motion for judgment of nonsuit, the evidence is taken in the light most favorable to the State and it is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. State v. Tessnear, 254 N.C. 211, 118 S.E. 2d 393. Here, the evidence offered by the State is clearly sufficient, if believed by the jury, as it was, to support the charge. The motion for judgment of nonsuit and for a directed verdict of not guilty was, therefore, properly overruled. We have examined the exceptions to the charge and find them to be without merit.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CuRiAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Icenhour and Staff Attorney O\u2019Quinn for the State.",
      ".E. L. Alston, Jr. and Gerald A. Pell for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. KENNETH A. BEAVER.\n(Filed 15 December, 1965.)\n1. Bills and Notes \u00a7 30\u2014\nA warrant charging that defendant did \u201cissue\u201d and \u201cpass\u201d a worthless check cannot be held defective in failing to aver that defendant delivered the check to another, since the words \u201cissue\u201d and \u201cpass\u201d, in context, import delivery.\n3. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9\u2014\nIt is not necessary that a warrant use the exact words of a statute, it being sufficient if words of equivalent import are used.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014\nOn motion for nonsuit, the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the State and it is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.\n4. Bills and Notes \u00a7 30\u2014\nEvidence tending to show that defendant issued cheeks to a named payee, that the checks were not post dated, that there was no understanding that the payee would hold them at the time of delivery, but that a request was made the day thereafter that the payee hold them, which the payee did for a time and then presented them to the drawee bank, which refused payment, is held, sufficient to overrule nonsuit in a prosecution under G.S. 14-107.\nAppeal by defendant from McLaughlin, J., 10 May 1965 Criminal Session of Guilfoed (Greensboro Division).\nThe defendant was originally tried in the Municipal-County Court in Greensboro upon two warrants, which are identical except as to dates and amounts. Each warrant charges that the defendant \u201cdid unlawfully and wilfully make, utter, issue, draw and pass a worthless check\u201d for a specified amount, knowing that he did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the drawee bank for payment thereof, in violation of Chapter 14, \u00a7 107, of the General Statutes of North Carolina.\nThe defendant being found guilty and sentenced by the Municipal-County Court, appealed to the Superior Court where he was tried de novo, the two cases being consolidated for trial. Upon a verdict of guilty in each case, he was sentenced to confinement in the county jail for two years in one case and for 30 days in the other, the sentences to run consecutively. From these judgments he appeals to this Court, assigning as error the overruling of his motion for judgment of nonsuit and a directed verdict of not guilty, certain portions of the charge and certain alleged omissions therein.\nIn this Court he filed a motion in arrest of judgment in each case on the ground that neither warrant charges a violation of GS. 14-107 since it is not charged that the defendant did \u201cdeliver to another\u201d the check in question. In his brief he states, \u201cThis constitutes the defendant\u2019s most serious contention in this appeal.\u201d\nThe two checks were introduced in evidence as exhibits for the State. While these exhibits were not included, as such, in the record before us, each was quoted in full in the charge to the jury, no exception being taken to that portion of the charge. Each is in the usual form of a check. Each is payable to the order of Lee Stephenson. Each is drawn on the First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company at Greensboro.\nLee Stephenson testified as to each check that it was given to him by the defendant, it was not post dated, there was no understanding that the payee would hold it; the day after it was given to the payee the defendant requested the payee to hold the check, the payee did so for a time and then presented it to the drawee bank for payment, which was refused. Neither check was endorsed by the payee.\nAn employee of the drawee bank testified that the defendant opened an'account at that bank on 11 January 1965, several months after the checks in question were given by the defendant to the payee. The defendant had no account in the drawee bank when either of the checks was so given to the payee.\nAttorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Icenhour and Staff Attorney O\u2019Quinn for the State.\n.E. L. Alston, Jr. and Gerald A. Pell for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0115-01",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 153
}