State v. . Cofer

Stagy, C. J. According to the established practice in this jurisdiction, whether the witnesses Rainey and Whitaker were experts, competent to compare the disputed writings with established writings of the defendant and express their opinions as to whether the disputed writings were in the handwriting of the accused, was a matter addressed primarily to the sound judgment of the trial court, and is not subject to review on appeal, as the ruling is supported by ample evidence. S. v. Brewer, 202 N. C., 187, 162 S. E., 363; S. v. Wilcox, 132 N. C., 1120, 44 S. E., 625; Liles v. Pickett Mills, 191 N. C., 772, 150 S. E., 363; Shaw v. Handle Co., 188 N. C., 222, 124 S. E., 325. True, the witnesses may have been somewhat modest in stating their qualifications, nevertheless they did say they could compare the writings and form opinions satisfactory to themselves, and the evidence is quite sufficient to support the ruling of the court in declaring them to be experts. The remaining exceptions call for no elaboration. *655 Tbe offense charged against tbe defendant, and of which he stands convicted, is a serious one. It strikes at the very foundation of government and the ability of organized society to protect itself against the machinations of the gangster and the racketeer. Much has been heard of similar methods in other places and other lands, but it was not thought that they had taken root in our own soil. Mayhap we are only following suit and learning again in this new epoch, that “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Matt. 6 :34. No action or ruling of the trial court has been discovered which we apprehend should be held for reversible error. The verdict and judgment will be upheld. No error.