Tickle v. . Hobgood
This text of 194 S.E. 461 (Tickle v. . Hobgood) 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.
Opinion
An application for a bill of particulars under C. S., 534, or a motion to require a pleading to be made more definite and certain under 537, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and his ruling thereon, made in the exercise of such discretion, is not reviewable on appeal, except perhaps in extreme cases. Temple v. Tel. Co., 205 N. C., 441, 171 S. E., 630; S. v. Bryant, 111 N. C., 693, 16 S. E., 326. Where however, as here, the court denies the motion as a matter of law, without the exercise of discretion, the defendant is entitled to have the application reconsidered and passed upon as a discretionary matter. Townsend v. Williams, 117 N. C., 330, 23 S. E., 461; S. v. Fuller, 114 N. C., 885, 19 S. E., 797. For procedure in criminal cases see C. S., 4613; S. v. Wadford, 194 N. C., 336, 139 S. E., 608.
Error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
194 S.E. 461, 212 N.C. 762, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tickle-v-hobgood-nc-1938.