State v. . Downs

24 S.E. 531, 118 N.C. 1242
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 24 S.E. 531 (State v. . Downs) 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. . Downs, 24 S.E. 531, 118 N.C. 1242 (N.C. 1896).

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The evidence that the shooting had occurred about the time the defendant’s distillery had been cut up was admitted by the court, as it stated, simply to fix the date of the assault. Thus restricted, certainly it was unobjectionable. The evidence of Robert Boyd was very indefinite. Though the defendant as-lced that it be excluded, there was no exception for failure to. do so. Code, Sec. 412 (2). Taylor v. Plummer, 105 N. C., 56. The exception to the charge is not to any specific-instruction, but is a “broadside exception” to the entire charge, and therefore cannot be considered for the reasons given in McKinnon v. Morrison, 104 N. C., 354, and the numerous cases affirming it, Clark’s Code, (2nd Ed.,) pp. 382, 383, and in supplement to same, p. 64. Besides, the charge presented no grounds for exception by this defendant.

No Error..

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

Related

Wilson v. Beaufort County Lumber Co.
42 S.E. 565 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Hampton v. Norfolk & Western Railroad
120 N.C. 534 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Hampton v. . R. R.
27 S.E. 96 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
State v. . Moore
26 S.E. 697 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Burnett v. Wilmington, Newbern & Norfolk Railway Co.
26 S.E. 819 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 S.E. 531, 118 N.C. 1242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-downs-nc-1896.