Phillips v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Phillips v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad

41 S.E. 805, 130 N.C. 582, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 110

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 10, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 41 S.E. 805 (Phillips v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad) 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

Phillips v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad, 41 S.E. 805, 130 N.C. 582, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 110 (N.C. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

At the close of the evidence the defendants handed up to the Court the following paper: “Defendant’s prayers. The defendant requests the Court to charge the jury in writing, and as follows: First” (here follows ten prayers, duly numbered). The exception 3 is that the Court did not put the whole charge in writing. This is the sole point presented by the appeal, for exception 1 is abandoned; exception 2 is to allowing the witness to explain what he *583 meant by a remark wbicb be testified be bad made, and is without merit, and exception 4 is to refusal of a new trial for above alleged errors.

We tbink bis Honor correctly beld tbat tbe language of defendant’s request “to charge tbei jury in writing, and as follows,” and entitled “Defendant’s prayers,” was a request under The Code, Sec. 415, solely to> deliver those instructions ro tbe jury, and was not a request to put tbe entire charge in uniting, under tbe provisions of Tbe Code, Sec. 414. Tbe addition of tbe words, “and as follows,” restricts the request to tbe written matter wbicb followed. Tbe defendant did not, at tbe conclusion of tbe charge, by exception or otherwise, indicate to tbe Judge tbat be expected tbe whole charge to be in writing, and if tbe defendant’s counsel himself pat such construction on bis prayers, it would have been but just to tbe Judge and to tbe opposite party to have made that known while tbe matter could have been corrected, and not have waited till after verdict. By not excepting in apt time, objection was waived.

Tbe charge seems to have been quite full and almost all in writing, a large part being tbe written requests to' charge; but if there bad been a request to put tbe charge in writing, it would have been tbe duty of tbe Judge to put bis whole charge as to tbe law- — -but not tbe recapitulation of tbe evidence — in writing. Bank v. Sumner, 119 N. C., 591, and other cases collected in Clark’s Code (3d Ed.), page 538.

No Error.

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

Clark, J.

At the close of the evidence the defendants handed up to the Court the following paper: “Defendant’s prayers. The defendant requests the Court to charge the jury in writing, and as follows: First” (here follows ten prayers, duly numbered). The exception 3 is that the Court did not put the whole charge in writing. This is the sole point presented by the appeal, for exception 1 is abandoned; exception 2 is to allowing the witness to explain what he *583 meant by a remark wbicb be testified be bad made, and is without merit, and exception 4 is to refusal of a new trial for above alleged errors.

We tbink bis Honor correctly beld tbat tbe language of defendant’s request “to charge tbei jury in writing, and as follows,” and entitled “Defendant’s prayers,” was a request under The Code, Sec. 415, solely to> deliver those instructions ro tbe jury, and was not a request to put tbe entire charge in uniting, under tbe provisions of Tbe Code, Sec. 414. Tbe addition of tbe words, “and as follows,” restricts the request to tbe written matter wbicb followed. Tbe defendant did not, at tbe conclusion of tbe charge, by exception or otherwise, indicate to tbe Judge tbat be expected tbe whole charge to be in writing, and if tbe defendant’s counsel himself pat such construction on bis prayers, it would have been but just to tbe Judge and to tbe opposite party to have made that known while tbe matter could have been corrected, and not have waited till after verdict. By not excepting in apt time, objection was waived.

Tbe charge seems to have been quite full and almost all in writing, a large part being tbe written requests to' charge; but if there bad been a request to put tbe charge in writing, it would have been tbe duty of tbe Judge to put bis whole charge as to tbe law- — -but not tbe recapitulation of tbe evidence — in writing. Bank v. Sumner, 119 N. C., 591, and other cases collected in Clark’s Code (3d Ed.), page 538.

No Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 S.E. 805, 130 N.C. 582, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-wilmington-weldon-railroad-nc-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack