State v. . Rabil

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Rabil

124 S.E. 566, 188 N.C. 817, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 192

DecidedSeptember 24, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 124 S.E. 566 (State v. . Rabil) 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. . Rabil, 124 S.E. 566, 188 N.C. 817, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 192 (N.C. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

It appears from an inspection of the record that defendant was convicted of abandonment at January Term, 1924, of the Superior Court of Wayne County, and, on conviction, sentenced to the county roads on 24 January, 1924, from which said judgment defendant appealed; that the record of said appeal was not docketed in this Court until 4 September, 1924, after commencement of Fall Term of the Court, nor was there any proceedings, by writ of certiorari or otherwise, by which the time for docketing said appeal was extended. The appeal, therefore, not having been brought to the next term of the Supreme Court after trial and sentence had, same was dismissed, on motion, in accordance with Eule 5 of Supreme Court, appertaining to appeals; and no valid reason therefor having been made to appear, defendant’s motion to reinstate is denied. S. v. Farmer, ante, 243, and authorities cited.

Motion to reinstate denied.

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

Pee Cueiam.

It appears from an inspection of the record that defendant was convicted of abandonment at January Term, 1924, of the Superior Court of Wayne County, and, on conviction, sentenced to the county roads on 24 January, 1924, from which said judgment defendant appealed; that the record of said appeal was not docketed in this Court until 4 September, 1924, after commencement of Fall Term of the Court, nor was there any proceedings, by writ of certiorari or otherwise, by which the time for docketing said appeal was extended. The appeal, therefore, not having been brought to the next term of the Supreme Court after trial and sentence had, same was dismissed, on motion, in accordance with Eule 5 of Supreme Court, appertaining to appeals; and no valid reason therefor having been made to appear, defendant’s motion to reinstate is denied. S. v. Farmer, ante, 243, and authorities cited.

Motion to reinstate denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.E. 566, 188 N.C. 817, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rabil-nc-1924.