State v. . Flood

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Flood

129 S.E. 145, 190 N.C. 848, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 190

DecidedSeptember 16, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.E. 145 (State v. . Flood) 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. . Flood, 129 S.E. 145, 190 N.C. 848, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 190 (N.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The defendant in apt time moved to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence. His Honor heard oral testimony not available to the defendant at the trial and in his discretion denied the motion. In this, we find no error. The motion, of course, cannot be entertained in this Court. S. v. Jenkins, 182 N. C., 818. The demurrer to the evidence and the motion to vacate the verdict on the ground that the State’s evidence was insufficient were properly overruled. There are no other assignments of error.

No error.

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

Pee Cueiam.

The defendant in apt time moved to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence. His Honor heard oral testimony not available to the defendant at the trial and in his discretion denied the motion. In this, we find no error. The motion, of course, cannot be entertained in this Court. S. v. Jenkins, 182 N. C., 818. The demurrer to the evidence and the motion to vacate the verdict on the ground that the State’s evidence was insufficient were properly overruled. There are no other assignments of error.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E. 145, 190 N.C. 848, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-flood-nc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack