State Ex Rel . Tidline v. . Hickerson

72 N.C. 421
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1875·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*422 Rodman, J.

"We are not informed by the record for what reason his Honor rejected the deposition offered in evidence by the defendant. It is said here it was because he considered the proceeding a criminal one, in which depositions are not admitted. That a proceeding in bastardy in a civil action is settled by the cases of State v. Pate, 1 Busb. 244, and State v. McIntosh, 64 N. C., 607. The deposition was admissible.

Pee CuRIAm. Judgment below reversed and venire de novo. Let this opinion be certified.

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

State Ex Rel . Tidline v. . Hickerson, 72 N.C. 421 (N.C. 1875).

72 N.C. 421 (State Ex Rel . Tidline v. . Hickerson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. State
69 So. 406 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
State v. . Liles
47 S.E. 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
State v. Ballard
122 N.C. 1024 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)