State v. . Jackson

7 N.C. 230
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 5, 1819·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Heatsersok, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Upon an appeal from the County to the Superior Court, the law directs that there shall be a trial de novo ; that is, it shall be tried in the same manner as it should havebeen tried in the County Court. On the motion to remit the forfeiture in the County Court, the Defendants were bound to shew some reason or cause wherefore it should be remitted. When the case came into the Superior Court, upon an appeal, the Defendants should again, as in the County Court, have shewn the reason wherefore their forfeiture should bo remitted. The opinion, therefore, of the presiding Judge, was erroneous in affirming the judgment of the County Court, merely because the State did not shew it to be wrong. He should have heard the case de novo. The judgment of the Superior Court must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded to the Superior Court, with instructions to hear it de novo.

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

State v. . Jackson, 7 N.C. 230 (N.C. 1819).

7 N.C. 230 (State v. . Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moser v. Fulk
74 S.E.2d 729 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)