Smith v. Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Smith v. Railroad

54 S.E. 786, 142 N.C. 21

DecidedSeptember 11, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 54 S.E. 786 (Smith v. 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

Smith v. Railroad, 54 S.E. 786, 142 N.C. 21 (N.C. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

ClabK, C. J.

There are several exceptions in the record, but the only one stated in the appellant’s brief is that which was taken to comments of counsel. The others are therefore “taken as abandoned.” Rule 34, 140 N. C., 666.

*22 Objection to the comments of counsel is a matter peculiarly witbin the discretion of the trial Judge, and his action is not reviewable unless there is gross abuse of the discretion and it ajjpears reasonably probable that the appellant suffered prejudice thereby.

In the present case there was merely “cross-firing with small shot,” as was said by the Court in State v. Underwood, 77 N. C., 502. It is not probable that any real injury was done, and we cannot hold that the Judge erred in refusing to interpose. The jury may have been amused or entertained, or otherwise; but crediting them with being men of ordinary intelligence, their verdict was based on the evidence without any effect from this “by-play.”

No Error.

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

ClabK, C. J.

There are several exceptions in the record, but the only one stated in the appellant’s brief is that which was taken to comments of counsel. The others are therefore “taken as abandoned.” Rule 34, 140 N. C., 666.

*22 Objection to the comments of counsel is a matter peculiarly witbin the discretion of the trial Judge, and his action is not reviewable unless there is gross abuse of the discretion and it ajjpears reasonably probable that the appellant suffered prejudice thereby.

In the present case there was merely “cross-firing with small shot,” as was said by the Court in State v. Underwood, 77 N. C., 502. It is not probable that any real injury was done, and we cannot hold that the Judge erred in refusing to interpose. The jury may have been amused or entertained, or otherwise; but crediting them with being men of ordinary intelligence, their verdict was based on the evidence without any effect from this “by-play.”

No Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 S.E. 786, 142 N.C. 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-railroad-nc-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack