State v. . Bright

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Bright

4 N.C. 437

DecidedJuly 5, 1816

StatusPublished

This text of 4 N.C. 437 (State v. . Bright) 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 v. . Bright, 4 N.C. 437 (N.C. 1816).

Pincite

Opinion

A motion was made in behalf of the defendant that the verdict be entered up as one of acquittal, and a motion was made on the part of the State for a venire facias de novo. (438) The jury having found that the defendant did not take the fee charged in the indictment corruptly, have, by their verdict, negatived the very gist of the indictment. It is equivalent to a verdict of "Not guilty." The defendant must, therefore, be discharged.

NOTE. — See S. v. Avera, post, 669; S. v. Arrington, 6 N.C. 671.

Dist.: S. v. Pritchard, 107 N.C. 930.

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

A motion was made in behalf of the defendant that the verdict be entered up as one of acquittal, and a motion was made on the part of the State for a venire facias de novo. (438) The jury having found that the defendant did not take the fee charged in the indictment corruptly, have, by their verdict, negatived the very gist of the indictment. It is equivalent to a verdict of "Not guilty." The defendant must, therefore, be discharged.

NOTE. — See S. v. Avera, post, 669; S. v. Arrington, 6 N.C. 671.

Dist.: S. v. Pritchard, 107 N.C. 930.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 N.C. 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bright-nc-1816.