¶1 Tbe question for decision is tbe reasonableness of tbe punishment inflicted. Tbe defendant was given an opportunity in tbe Municipal Court to escape the road sentence there imposed by paying bis check and tbe costs of tbe action. This be elected not to do.
¶2 He was given tbe same sentence upon a plea of guilty in tbe Superior Court without any conditional or elective suspension. He would now like to go back and accept tbe conditions attached to tbe sentence in tbe Municipal Court. These conditions, however, are no longer available to him.
¶3 His appeal here is to test tbe alleged cruelty and unusuality of tbe punishment inflicted in tbe Superior Court where be entered a plea of guilty to tbe offense charged.
¶4 Tbe defendant was given two chances by tbe bolder of tbe check, and two by tbe Municipal Court. Tbe Superior Court evidently thought tbe best way to take bis bad checks out of circulation was to take him out of circulation for awhile. A check is a negotiable instrument and passes readily through tbe channels of commerce because of tbe faith and confidence which those in tbe marketplaces are willing to repose in negotiable paper, and it is an injury to society to undermine this confidence. It is not tbe attempted payment of a debt that is condemned by tbe statute, but tbe giving of a worthless check and its consequent disturbance of business integrity. S. v. Yarboro, 194 N.C. 498, 140 S.E. 216.
¶5 Tbe sentence imposed is less than tbe punishment heretofore approved in a number of misdemeanor cases. It cannot be said to be “cruel and unusual” in a constitutional sense. Tbe judgment will be affirmed on ' authority of S. v. Levy, 220 N.C. 812, 18 S.E. 2d 355; S. v. Parker, 220 N.C. 416, 17 S.E. 2d 475; S. v. Brackett, 218 N.C. 369, 11 S.E. 2d 146; S. v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769, 12 S.E. 2d 654.
¶6 Affirmed.