(after stating the case). The first exception is addressed to the admission by his Honor of the written examination of Talbert, the objection being that the examination was not signed by the witness. To this the Attorney General answers that the alleged omission should have been assigned in the Court below. It is well settled by our author*341ities that when a general objection is made, either to the competency "of a witness or to the reception of testimony, the party objecting may avail himself of any grounds that may exist in support of his contention, but in the case of testimony, “ if only a part is incompetent, the exception will not be entertained if they are severable ” Hammond v. Schiff, 100 N. C., 161, 175.
When the objection is made, the Court may, in all cases, require the grounds of objection to be stated, and only those stated can be made the subjects of exception and review. State v. Kemp, 87 N. C., 538; State v. Secrest, 80 N. C., 451.
In fairness to the Judges, and in aid of an intelligent ruling upon the questions presented, we go further, and say that if, after being required by the Court, a party refuses to state the grounds of his objections, his exception shall avail him nothing. In this case there was a general exception, but we are unable to perceive any reason why the examination should not have been admitted. The case does not purport to set out anything but a mere extract from the examination, and we do not feel at liberty to assume from this that the witness did not sign it. The presumption is that the Justice performed his duty. State v. Parish, Busb., 239. And his testimony and the remarks of the Judge strongly tend to show that the objection and ruling were based only upon the sufficiency of certain extrinsic facts, necessary to be shown before the examination could be read. If the witness did not sign it, the defendant should have made it so appear by having the entire examination brought up as a part of the case. This he has failed to do, and the exception must be overruled.
The fifth, sixth and seventh prayers for instruction were properly refused, as a perusal of the testimony will show that Foreman sold the horse to Ivey, and after the defendant bought him Foreman called his attention to the diseased shoulder, and that the defendant told him that he had *342“ gotten the shoulder all right.” This disposes also of the exception to the testimony of the said Foreman and Ivey, the objection being that the defendant had no knowledge of the diseased shoulder, while they owned the animal. It was immaterial whether the defendant knew of it then or not, as it was brought to his knowledge before he traded with the prosecutor. Besides, the testimony was admissible to show that the horse was in fact diseased. The other prayers for instruction were given, except the first. This is predicated upon a fact only of the testimony of the prosecutor, and entirely ignores his statement, that when he called the defendant’s attention to the “limping” of the animal the defendant assured him that it was not from any disease'; had never been lame, and was as “sound as a dollar,” at the same time suggesting that the “limping” was caused by the animal having been recently shod.
Mr. Wharton, in his work on Criminal Law, vol. 2, § 2128, says: “We have seen that to cheat at common law, it is essential that the fraud should be latent. It was in fact to meet this difficulty that the statute of false pretences was passed, and under this statute it has been repeatedly held that it matters not how patent the falsity of a pretence may be if it succeeds in defrauding.” After speaking of some cases modifying this view, he concludes by saying: “It is submitted, however, that whether the prosecutor had the means of detection at hand, or whether the pretences were of such a character as to impose upon him, are questions of fact, to be left to the jury, as they must necessarily vary with the particular case. If fraudulent and false pretences were used and goods obtained by them, nothing but very gross carelessness will justify an acquittal. The statutes suppose defective caution, for if there were perfect caution no false pretence could take effect.” We think that these principles govern this case. It is true that in State v. Young, 76 N. C., 258, the doctrine of caveat emptor was recog*343nized as applicable to false pretence, but, to quote the language of the Court, “ the fact misrepresented was that the cotton was ‘good middling,’ but this was a matter of observation, and the defect was as patent to the prosecutrix as to any one else, and there the doctrine of caveat em.ptor must apply.” That case was quite distinct from this. There, in the very nature of things, the prosecutrix could judge of the quality of the cotton, and nothing was said or done by the defendant to deceive or mislead her. It was, at most, a mere matter of judgment, which she, like other purchasers, was expected to exercise. In our case the pretence was that the animal was “ sound, and not lame,” and the evidence tended to show that the defendant knew that it had a disease of long standing called ‘'sweeny,” which was not perceptible, and that the lameness would not occur until after about three days’ driving; that when the prosecutor discovered symptoms of lameness his suspicions were allayed by the assurances of the defendant, as above stated. In view of these circumstances, his Honor very properly refused to charge, that the mere fact that the prosecutor perceived the lameness at the time of the trade, entitled the defendant to a verdict of not guilty. This would be disregarding the testimony tending to the stratagem and fraud of the defendant, and putting the cause to the jury only upon the fact of the testimony which was favorable to him. No proper instruction having been refused, and there being no error in the charge, as given, we see no reason to disturb the verdict.
No error. Affirmed.