State v. . May

24 S.E. 118, 118 N.C. 1204
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 24 S.E. 118 (State v. . May) 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. . May, 24 S.E. 118, 118 N.C. 1204 (N.C. 1896).

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The transcript fails to show that the court was held by a judge at the time and place required by law ; that a grand jury was drawn, sworn and charged, and presented the indictment, and there are other defects. It is the duty of the appellant to have the record sent up, and when it is in such condition as above stated usually the Court will dismiss the appeal, unless it is shown that the appellant was guilty of no laches, otherwise the appellant could always procure six months’ delay by simply failing to have a sufficient record sent up. State v. McDowell, 93 N. C., 541; State v. Johnston, Ib., 559. The Court has sometimes not dismissed in such case, but never unless a serious question is presented, as in State v. Farrar, 103 N. C., 411, and cases cited. But in the present case the only exception is for refusal to arrest the judgment on the allegation of a defect in the indictment, and on inspection there is no defect. The Oode, Sec. 985, (Sub Sec. 6,) has been amended by the Act of 1885, Ch. 66, repealing that part requiring an allegation of intent. State v. Rogers, 94 N. C., 860.

Appeal Dismissed.

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

Related

State v. Stubbs
144 S.E.2d 262 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State v. Jenkins
66 S.E.2d 819 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
State v. . McLamb
199 S.E. 81 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
State v. . Stafford
166 S.E. 734 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
State v. . Golden
166 S.E. 311 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Frazier v. Piedmont & Northern Railway Co.
161 S.E. 689 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Pruitt v. . Wood
156 S.E. 126 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
State v. . Barnhill
119 S.E. 894 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
State v. Daniel
28 S.E. 255 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 S.E. 118, 118 N.C. 1204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-may-nc-1896.