State v. . Manuel

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Manuel

64 N.C. 601

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1870

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 64 N.C. 601 (State v. . Manuel) 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. . Manuel, 64 N.C. 601 (N.C. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Settle, J.

The first exception made by the prisoner, to-wit: to the introduction of the witness, Parker, who was “ going on” twelve years of age, was disposed of by his Honor after a full investigation. This was a matter resting solely in the discretion of his Honor, and we cannot review his ruling, in this Court. It may not be improper to say that we think from the evidence transmitted to this Court, that his discretion was properly exercised.

At night-fall the prisoner contended that the Court could' not adjourn until morning, without his consent, and insisted upon proceeding with the trial. If this were so, the decisions of our Courts would frequently turn upon the physical powers and the endurance of the prisoner, rather than upon the law and justice of the case. True, there are certain steps dining the progress of a trial which cannot be taken without the consent of the prisoner, e. g. the discharge of the *603 jury before they render their verdict, except under overruling circumstances amounting to a necessity. Perhaps it is upon this idea that the prisoner founds his exception. But it is wholly inadmissible. The usual adjournments from day to day, and for refreshment, are altogether at the discretion of the presiding Judge.

Again the prisoner excepts, because his Honor declined to take steps to keep the witnesses separate during the night. They had been separated during the trial in the day. The separation of witnesses, at any time, is a matter for the discretion of the Court, and even if his Honor had refused to order their separation at the trial, it would have furnished no just ground of exception. Because of the importance of the case to the prisoner, we have noticed all of his exceptions seriatim. We have also carefully examined the record, and have not been able to discover any error. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Let this be certified, &c.

Per Curiam. " Judgment affirmed.

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

Settle, J.

The first exception made by the prisoner, to-wit: to the introduction of the witness, Parker, who was “ going on” twelve years of age, was disposed of by his Honor after a full investigation. This was a matter resting solely in the discretion of his Honor, and we cannot review his ruling, in this Court. It may not be improper to say that we think from the evidence transmitted to this Court, that his discretion was properly exercised.

At night-fall the prisoner contended that the Court could' not adjourn until morning, without his consent, and insisted upon proceeding with the trial. If this were so, the decisions of our Courts would frequently turn upon the physical powers and the endurance of the prisoner, rather than upon the law and justice of the case. True, there are certain steps dining the progress of a trial which cannot be taken without the consent of the prisoner, e. g. the discharge of the *603 jury before they render their verdict, except under overruling circumstances amounting to a necessity. Perhaps it is upon this idea that the prisoner founds his exception. But it is wholly inadmissible. The usual adjournments from day to day, and for refreshment, are altogether at the discretion of the presiding Judge.

Again the prisoner excepts, because his Honor declined to take steps to keep the witnesses separate during the night. They had been separated during the trial in the day. The separation of witnesses, at any time, is a matter for the discretion of the Court, and even if his Honor had refused to order their separation at the trial, it would have furnished no just ground of exception. Because of the importance of the case to the prisoner, we have noticed all of his exceptions seriatim. We have also carefully examined the record, and have not been able to discover any error. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Let this be certified, &c.

Per Curiam. " Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 N.C. 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-manuel-nc-1870.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack