Venable v. . Martin

4 N.C. 128
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1814
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 N.C. 128 (Venable v. . Martin) 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
Venable v. . Martin, 4 N.C. 128 (N.C. 1814).

Opinion

When it appears to the court that a party has summoned a witness, not at all material in the suit, justice requires that he should himself pay the costs so incurred, and that his adversary should not be *Page 102 charged with them. But the person aggrieved should make his objections as soon as he can after having made the discovery; one strong reason for which is that the judge who tried the cause is much better qualified to judge of the materiality of a witness than any succeeding judge.

Whether the witnesses in the present case were material or not, it is unnecessary, however, to inquire, because they, amongst others, were at the plaintiff's own motion called, sworn, and delivered over to the sheriff, which we all think was sufficient notice that they were summoned; and if they were not examined, he ought then to have ascertained the fact of their immateriality, and not have postponed it to a time when the inquiry is much more difficult to be made.

(129) Let the present motion be dismissed.

NOTE. — See Carpenter v. Taylor, post, 689.

Cited: Harris v. Lee, 46 N.C. 228; Loftin v. Baxter, 66 N.C. 342;Hobbs v. R. R., 151 N.C. 136.

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

Related

Hobbs v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
65 S.E. 755 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 N.C. 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venable-v-martin-nc-1814.