Den Ex Dem. of Blair v. Miller

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Den Ex Dem. of Blair v. Miller

14 N.C. 261

DecidedDecember 5, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.C. 261 (Den Ex Dem. of Blair v. Miller) 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.

Bluebook

Den Ex Dem. of Blair v. Miller, 14 N.C. 261 (N.C. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

Slight mistakes in offering evidence to a jury, and in the examination of witnesses, particularly when not objected to at the time, are not, generally, sufficient reasons for setting aside verdicts, upon objections taken for the first time after the verdicts are recorded.

- In the present case however, it docs not appear that any mistake lias happened. The note was read for no other purpose than to fix the time, from its date, when Elrod took possession of the land for which this suit is brought, in order to make out a seven years possession. The note was given by Elrod in the year 1800, and its execution proved by the subscribing witness. It cannot be believed that it was then given by Elrod, to furnish evidence at this day, that Elrod was.tenant.-of the land *262 at that time. The strong presumption is otherwise. Í admit that an acknowledgment of the note by Elrod of recent date would not be sufficient.

I think there is not the smallest pretence for granting á new trial.

Per Curiam — Judgment aeeirmeb.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hall, Judge.

Slight mistakes in offering evidence to a jury, and in the examination of witnesses, particularly when not objected to at the time, are not, generally, sufficient reasons for setting aside verdicts, upon objections taken for the first time after the verdicts are recorded.

- In the present case however, it docs not appear that any mistake lias happened. The note was read for no other purpose than to fix the time, from its date, when Elrod took possession of the land for which this suit is brought, in order to make out a seven years possession. The note was given by Elrod in the year 1800, and its execution proved by the subscribing witness. It cannot be believed that it was then given by Elrod, to furnish evidence at this day, that Elrod was.tenant.-of the land *262 at that time. The strong presumption is otherwise. Í admit that an acknowledgment of the note by Elrod of recent date would not be sufficient.

I think there is not the smallest pretence for granting á new trial.

Per Curiam — Judgment aeeirmeb.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.C. 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/den-ex-dem-of-blair-v-miller-nc-1831.