State Ex Rel. Underwood, Marsh & Co. v. Parks

25 N.C. 296
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1843
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 25 N.C. 296 (State Ex Rel. Underwood, Marsh & Co. v. Parks) 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
State Ex Rel. Underwood, Marsh & Co. v. Parks, 25 N.C. 296 (N.C. 1843).

Opinion

GastoN, J.

It is essential to the uniform administration of justice, which is one of the best securities for its faithful administration, that the rules of evidence should be steadily observed. Among these, the rule, which regulates the admission of testimony, offered to impeach the character of a witness, is now so well established and so clearly defined, that a departure from it must be regarded as a violation of law. The witness is not to be discredited, because of the opinions which any person or any number of persons may have expressed to his disadvantage, unless such opinions have created or indicate a general reputation of his want of moral principle. The impeaching witness must, therefore, profess to know the general reputation of the witness sought to be discredited, before he can be heard to speak of his own opinion or of the opinions of others, as to the reliance to be placed on the testimony of the impeached witness.

State v Boswell, 2 Dev. 209. Downey v Smith, 1 Dev. & Bat. 62. This rule, we think, was not observed in the case before us, and the exception taken to the reception of Mr. Worth’s testimony was therefore well founded. The judgment must be reversed and a new trial awarded.

Per Curiam. New trial awarded.

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

Related

State v. Orr
269 S.E.2d 727 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
State v. Stegmann
213 S.E.2d 262 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)
State v. McEachern
194 S.E.2d 787 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Ellis
90 S.E.2d 225 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
State v. . Smoak
195 S.E. 72 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
State v. . Nance
141 S.E. 468 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
State v. . Colson
136 S.E. 730 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
Hunt v. . Eure
127 S.E. 593 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
McDowell v. Norfolk Southern Railroad
120 S.E. 205 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
State v. . Steen
117 S.E. 793 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
State v. . Mills
114 S.E. 314 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Coleman v. State
199 S.W. 473 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)
State v. . Wheeler
10 S.E. 491 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 N.C. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-underwood-marsh-co-v-parks-nc-1843.