State v. . R. P. Roseman

66 N.C. 634
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1872·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Reade, J.

If the defendants were in the [adverse possession of the school house, and bonco ftde claiming it as their own, it certainly was not a crime in them to pull it down. It was, therefore important for them to prove that fact, for the words of the Statute are, “shall unlawfully and wilfully demolish, &e.” Rev. Code, ch. 34, sec. 103.

Upon the supposition that the record which was offered and rejected was not sufficient evidence of title upon an issue directly involving title it was certainly evidence tending to ex *636 plain the possession of the defendants and the tona fides of what they did.

The rejection of this evidence was error, and entitles the defendants to a venire de novo, and therefore it is not necessary that we should consider the other exceptions; as they will probably not arise again.

» There is error. Let this be certified.

Pee Cusiam. Venire de novo.

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

State v. . R. P. Roseman, 66 N.C. 634 (N.C. 1872).

66 N.C. 634 (State v. . R. P. Roseman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Rowland Lumber Co.
69 S.E. 58 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
State v. . Boyce
14 S.E. 84 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)
State v. . Whitener
93 N.C. 590 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1885)
State v. . Marsh
91 N.C. 632 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)
State v. . Jaynes
78 N.C. 504 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)
State v. . Roseman
70 N.C. 235 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)