State v. . Royal

90 N.C. 755
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1884·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Ashe, J.

There is no principle of law better settled in this ■state than that evidence impeaching their verdict must not come from the jury, but must be shown by other testimony. State v. McLeod, 1 Hawks, 344; State v. Smallwood, 78 N. C., 560; State v. Brittain, 89 N. C., 481.

It is therefore ordered that the motion for a new trial be ■overruled, and that the superior court of Cumberland county proceed to judgment against the defendant agreeably to this •opinion according to law.

No Error.

Affirmed.

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

State v. . Royal, 90 N.C. 755 (N.C. 1884).

90 N.C. 755 (State v. . Royal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cummings v. Ortega
716 S.E.2d 235 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2011)
State v. Cherry
257 S.E.2d 551 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)
State v. Hollingsworth
139 S.E.2d 235 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
McCabe Lumber Co. v. Beaufort County Lumber Co.
121 S.E. 755 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Bartholomew & Co. v. Parrish
118 S.E. 899 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Purcell v. Southern Railway Co.
119 N.C. 728 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Purcell v. . R. R.
26 S.E. 161 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Johnson v. . Allen
5 S.E. 666 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1888)
Lafoon v. . Shearin
95 N.C. 391 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)
State v. M'leod.
8 N.C. 344 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1821)