King's case

Circuit Court of North Carolina

King's case

1 N.C. 175

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 1, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.C. 175 (King's case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

King's case, 1 N.C. 175 (circtnc 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

Jones, J.

The words admit of a twofold construction, the one actionable, the other not. There is nothing either before or after, which may render an interpretation more probable than another, then, verba sunt accipienda in mitiori sensu. As if one says: Thou hast stolen my corn. No action lies, for it may be understood to be out of the field. But if he had said: Thou art a thief, and hast stolen my corn, it would be otherwise, on account of the preceeding words; and the judgment was arrested. Bendl. 202. Poph. 210. 3 Cr. 277. 1 Roll. 43.

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

Jones, J.

The words admit of a twofold construction, the one actionable, the other not. There is nothing either before or after, which may render an interpretation more probable than another, then, verba sunt accipienda in mitiori sensu. As if one says: Thou hast stolen my corn. No action lies, for it may be understood to be out of the field. But if he had said: Thou art a thief, and hast stolen my corn, it would be otherwise, on account of the preceeding words; and the judgment was arrested. Bendl. 202. Poph. 210. 3 Cr. 277. 1 Roll. 43.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.C. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kings-case-circtnc-1793.