State v. . Law

*444 Stacy, C. J. Tbe case was here at tbe Fall Term, 1946, on an indictment which laid tbe ownership of tbe property in tbe City of Winston-Salem. Tbe officer who seized tbe property was alone entitled to bold it, or approve bond for its return, and it was suggested tbe right to tbe property should be laid in tbe seizing officer or in tbe custody of tbe law. 227 N. C., 103. In tbe present bill, tbe ownership of tbe property is laid in Oscar Morrison. On tbe bearing, it appeared that Oscar Morrison was one of tbe seizing officers who took possession of tbe automobile. Tbe defendants have again pressed the issue of fatal variance with vigor and confidence. Oscar Morrison, as one of tbe, seizing officers, was entitled to bold tbe automobile and to approve bond for its return, thus be bad a special interest therein. This suffices, we think, to overcome tbe demurrers to tbe evidence and to obviate a fatal variance. S. v. Allen, 103 N. C., 433, 9 S. E., 626; S. v. Bell, 65 N. C., 313; S. v. Grant, 104 N. C., 908, 10 S. E., 554. Tbe exceptions to tbe charge are too attenuate to invalidate tbe trial. Tbe verdict and judgments will be upheld. No error.