State v. . Kirby

12 S.E. 1045, 108 N.C. 772
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1891·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.

after stating the case: The special verdict having found as a fact that “ the congregation was not disturbed by the fuss (i. e., the quarrel and fight) at the fire,” we do not see how it could be held that the congregation was, notwithstanding, disturbed thereby.

It is found that the congregation was disturbed by some one excitedly reporting that there was a fight. This was not the act of the defendant, nor was it necessarily the result of his actions. It should have appeared clearly, and not by inference only, that by the judgment of the Court the defend *774 ant was discharged (State v. Hazell, 95 N. C., 623), but the Attorney General admits that such was the- fact, and consents that the record may be amended so as to show it.

Affirmed.

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

State v. . Kirby, 12 S.E. 1045, 108 N.C. 772 (N.C. 1891).

12 S.E. 1045 (State v. . Kirby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Raleigh Banking & Trust Co. v. Safety Transit Lines
157 S.E. 62 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
State v. Hyman
79 S.E. 284 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
State v. . Bossee
59 S.E. 879 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
State v. . Lewis
55 S.E. 600 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)