Holcomb's Will, In re
| Decision Date | 26 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 604,604 |
| Citation | 93 S.E.2d 454,244 N.C. 391 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the WILL of J. E. HOLCOMB. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Joseph W. Brown, Whiteville, and Nance, Barrington & Collier, Fayetteville, for propounder appellant.
Powell, Lee & Lee, Whiteville, for caveator appellees.
G.S. § 1-180 denies the judge presiding at a jury trial the right in any manner or in any form, by word of mouth or by action, to invade the prerogative of the jury in its right to find the facts. This statute has been applied in many cases and under varying circumstances. The cases appearing in our books on the subject are too numerous to undertake to cite. However, In re Will of Bartlett, 235 N.C. 489, 70 S.E.2d 482, is almost on all fours. See also Hyder v. Asheville Storage Battery Co., Inc., 242 N.C. 553, 89 S.E.2d 124, and the multitude of other cases appearing in the Code Annotation to G.S. § 1-180 and in Michie's N.C. Digest.
No doubt the trial judge, in making the remark, 'As far as I am concerned he knows his father's signature,' spoke somewhat spontaneously, and he temporarily forgot or overlooked the fact that the jury heard what he had said. Even so, his remark constitutes an unequivocal endorsement of the veracity of the witness, a caveator. That it was harmful to propounder is apparent. The jury answered the issues in favor of the caveators.
Perhaps it might have been better if the judge had withdrawn a juror and ordered a new trial, thus saving the time and expense of an appeal to this Court. Be that as it may, a new trial was not ordered, and the propounder presents the question here by exception duly noted and an assignment of error duly made. We must perforce hold the same for prejudicial error and grant the propounder a new trial. It is so ordered.
New trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. Stallworth, 8426SC640
...N.C. 366, 158 S.E.2d 548 (1968). Although the court did not unequivocally undermine Dr. Barwick's testimony, see In re Will of Holcomb, 244 N.C. 391, 93 S.E.2d 454 (1956), its sua sponte instructions and omission of Dr. Barwick's testimony from its evidentiary summary clearly prejudiced pla......
-
Nowell v. Neal
...be submitted to a jury, being prohibited by statute, is a legal error. State v. Swaringen, 249 N.C. 38, 105 S.E.2d 99; In re Will of Holcomb, 244 N.C. 391, 93 S.E.2d 454; Adams v. Beaty Service Co., 237 N.C. 136, 74 S.E.2d 332; State v. Owenby, 226 N.C. 521, 39 S.E.2d The proper method for ......
-
State v. Holden
...form, to invade the province of the jury. Everette v. D. O. Briggs Lumber Co., 250 N.C. 688, 110 S.E.2d 288 (1959); In re Will of Holcomb, 244 N.C. 391, 93 S.E.2d 454 (1956); State v. Owenby, 226 N.C. 521, 39 S.E.2d 378 (1946). Jurors respect the judge and are easily influenced by suggestio......
-
Spencer v. Spencer
...the witnesses. We note that the trial judge in no way "unequivocally endorsed" the credibility of the witness. See In re Will of Holcomb, 244 N.C. 391, 93 S.E.2d 454 (1956). The cases cited generally by husband do not compel a finding of prejudicial error. In Worrell v. Hennis Credit Union,......