Watson v. Sylva Tanning Co.

130 S.E. 833, 190 N.C. 840, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 184

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: December 23, 1925
• Status: Published

Opinion

Adams, J.

Tbe defendant complains that tbe trial judge in bis instructions to tbe jury failed to “state in a plain and correct manner tbe evidence given in tbe case and to declare and explain tbe law arising thereon.” C. S., 564. In several cases recently decided we have stressed the necessity of observing this requirement and have reiterated the suggestion that a statement of the contentions accompanied with a bare enunciation of a legal principle is not sufficient: it is imperative that the law be declared, explained, and applied to the evidence. Upon at least two of the issues the instructions consist almost entirely of .a summary of the contentions of the parties; an error resulting, of course, from the momentary oversight of the cautious and thoughtful judge before whom the case was tried. Nichols v. Fibre Co., ante, 1; Richardson v. Cotton Mills, 189 N. C., 653; S. v. O’Neal, 187 N. C., 22; S. v. Thomas, 184 N. C., 757 ; S. v. Merrick, 171 N. C., 788, 795.

For the error complained of there must be a

New trial.