State v. Ashford, 120 N.C. 588 (1897)

Feb. 1897 · Supreme Court of North Carolina
120 N.C. 588
STATE v. FRANK ASHFORD

STATE v. FRANK ASHFORD.

Indictment for Obtaining Money Under False Pretences — Variance — Appeal—Frror in Record.

1. Section 957 of The Code authorizing this court to give such judgment as it shall appear, “ on an inspection of the whole record,” ought to he rendered, refers to such matters only as are necessarily of the record, as the pleadings, verdict and judgment; hence, where there were no exceptions on the trial, the fact that the indictment charged the defendant with obtaining “money” under.false pre-tences, while the proof was that he obtained “goods,” is not ground for reversal by this court of the judgment against the defendant.

2. A general exception, without specifying error, will not be considered by this court.

INDICTMENT for obtaining money under false representations, tried before Ooble, Jand a jury, at Spring Term, 1897, of Anson Superior Court. The defendant was convicted and appealed.

Mr. Attorney General.Zeb V. Wdlser, for State.

Mr. II. E. Faison, for defendant (appellant).

Faiecloth, C. J.:

The defendant was indicted for obtaining ‘‘money’’ under a false representation and the proof was that he obtained “goods and merchandise” under *589such representation. There were no exceptions, at the trial. After verdict the defendant' moved in arrest of judgment. On the argument here it was. insisted that the court, by looking through the whole record, would see that the judgment was such as should not in law be rendered under The Code, Section 957. No error was pointed out to the court by the defendant. The point made is that money was charged in the indictment and goods and merchandise only uere shown by the proof. The above Section refers only to such matters as are necessarily of the record, as the pleadings, verdict and judgment. If error in these matters is apparent, the court ex mero motu will arrest the judgment. When other matters are relied upon, they must be pointed by an exception on the trial or in the case on appeal. State v. Cowan, 29 N. C., 239; State v. Potter, 61 N. C., 338; State v. Jones, 69 N. C., 16; State v. Craige, 89 N. C., 475. A general exception, without specifying error, will not be considered in this court. Grant v. Hunsucker, 34 N. C., 254; Thornton v. Brady, 100 N. C., 38; McKinnon v. Morrison, 104 N. C., 354, and numerous cases cited.

Affirmed.