Arrington v. . Short
This text of 10 N.C. 71 (Arrington v. . Short) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It seems to me, that the Court erred, in stating to the jury, the paper writing purporting to be an inquest of Bunacy, was not, and ought not to be considered in the light of an inquest. I think it was too late to question it; it had been received by the County Court as such $ they had proceeded to appoint a guardian in consequence of it, and the proceedings shew that, that guardian had been, by tk& Plaintiff kimself, made a party to tills suit; *74 It is true, the writing or inquest was read to the Jury j but its effects might have been weakened, by stating to them, that it was only the opinion of twelve honest men, but not such evidence as a lawful inquest would be. Although received as an inquest, it would not be conclusive evidence; yet it ought to have been given to them in that character. We, therefore, think a new trial ought to be granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 N.C. 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrington-v-short-nc-1824.