State v. Bridgers
Citation | 87 N.C. 562 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM BRIDGERS. |
INDICTMENT for murder, tried at Spring Term, 1882, of WAYNE Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.
Verdict--guilty of manslaughter, judgment, appeal by prisoner.
Attorney General, for the State .
Messrs. Strong & Smedes, for the prisoner .
The prisoner and one McLean Lanier are charged in different counts of the indictment as principals in the first and second degree, each with the murder of one Jacob Best, by cutting and stabbing with a knife, and the prisoner alone being arraigned was tried upon his plea of not guilty. The jury in their verdict acquit of the murder and find him guilty of the felonious slaying, as charged in the bill. The only error assigned in the record is in the admission in evidence against the accused of the examination of the deceased taken before a justice on the day after the assault.
Preliminary to its introduction, the state examined the said justice who testified that the accused was brought before him, an acting justice of the peace of the county, charged with having cut the deceased, and upon an investigation of the charge, the deceased was examined for the state upon interrogations put by himself, and the answers written down by himself, as they were made; that the prisoner put some few questions to the deceased, which with the answers thereto were not put down, because not deemed to be material to the inquiry pending before him, and that these were but a repetition of the testimony given in before and already written down; that the testimony of the deceased was then read over to him and assented to and signed, and it contains the substance of all that was said by the deceased in reply to both the direct and cross-interrogations, and that the prisoner was present during the whole time.
Upon this statement the solicitor offered in evidence the examination of the deceased identified by the justice, and upon objection of the prisoner, which was overruled, it was received and read to the jury.
The admissibility of the testimony is contested before us upon two grounds:
1. That it does not appear to have been taken during a judicial inquiry into the charge made against the prisoner; and
2. That it is not full, embodying the substance and not the words of the deceased.
We think neither exception is tenable.
It is quite apparent from the record that the justice entered into an inquiry as to the offence in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gaston, 506
...are bound to presume that the acts of public officers are in all respects regular. State v. Wood, 175 N.C. 809, 95 S.E. 1050; State v. Bridgers, 87 N.C. 562; Stansbury: North Carolina Evidence, section 235; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § No error. ...
-
State v. Correll
...goes back to be tried on the bill of indictment as laid. State v. Stanton, 23 N.C. 424; State v. Grady, 83 N.C. 643; State v. Bridgers, 87 N.C. 562; State v. Craine, 120 N.C. 601, 27 S.E. 72; State v. Groves, 121 N.C. 563, 28 S.E. 262; State v. Freeman, 122 N. C. 1012, 29 S.E. 94; State v. ......
-
State v. Correll
...... by defendant from judgment on a verdict of guilty in a. criminal prosecution a new trial is ordered, the case goes. back to be tried on the bill of indictment as laid. [229 N.C. 642] State v. Stanton, 23 N.C. 424; State v. Grady, 83 N.C. 643; State v. Bridgers, 87 N.C. 562; State v. Craine, 120 N.C. 601, 27 S.E. 72;. State v. Groves, 121 N.C. 563, 28 S.E. 262;. State v. Freeman, 122 N.C. 1012, 29 S.E. 94;. State v. Gentry, 125 N.C. 733, 34 S.E. 706;. State v. Matthews, 142 N.C. 621, 55 S.E. 342;. State v. Beal, 202 N.C. 266, 162 S.E. 561, 80 A.L.R. ......
-
State v. Maynard
...... become hopelessly or permanently insane, or is wrongfully. absent from the trial by the acts and procurement of the. defendants, and by the weight of authority when the witness. has departed from the jurisdiction of the court and become. permanently a nonresident. State v. Bridgers, 87. N.C. 562; State v. Thomas, 64 N.C. 75; State v. Valentine, 29 N.C. 225; Mattox v. U. S., 156. U.S. 237, 242, 244, 15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed. 409; Reynolds. v. U. S., 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244; People v. Elliott, 172 N.Y. 146, 64 N.E. 837, 60 L. R. A. 318;. Commonwealth v. Richards, 18 Pick. ......