State v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
| Citation | 93 N.C. 581 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JAMES C. LEWIS. |
This was an indictment for perjury, tried before Gudger, Judge, and a jury, at Spring Term, 1885, of SAMPSON Superior Court.
The false oath assigned as perjury, was alleged in the indictment to have been taken on the 14th day of February, A. D., 1884, at an Inferior Court then and there held for the county of Sampson, before J. L. Stewart, J. G. Huggins and A. J. Johnson, justices of said Court, there and holding the same, in a certain criminal action for an assault and battery in said Court depending and tried, wherein the State was plaintiff and James Green, Troy Green and Daniel Peterson were defendants.
The record of the February Term, 1884, of said Inferior Court did not show that there was any indictment tried at that term of the Court against the said Greens and Peterson for an assault and battery.
But the record of the Inferior Court for November Term, 1883, which was offered in evidence by the State, did show that at that time an indictment for an assault and battery against the said Greens and Peterson was tried. The defendant objected to the admission of this evidence, but his Honor received it, and the defendant excepted. There was a great deal of evidence offered, an exception was taken to certain remarks made by the Solicitor in his speech to the jury, but there was no objection to the remarks, nor was the attention of the Court called to them at the time, and there were a number of special instructions asked by the defendant's counsel, which the Court declined to give, and proceeded to charge the jury, and there was no exception taken to the charge of the Judge, nor to any part thereof.
The defendant was convicted. There was a rule for a new trial, because the Court refused to give the instructions asked, and because the verdict was against the weight of evidence. This was refused, and the rule for a new trial discharged. Thereupon, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, which was overruled, and the sentence of the law was pronounced against him, from which he appealed.
The Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. E. W. Kerr, for the defendant .
ASHE, J., (after stating the facts).
The defendant can take no advantage from his exception taken to the alleged abuse of privilege in the remarks made by the Solicitor in his argument made before the jury. For assuming them to be improper, there is no error to be imputed to the Judge in not stopping the Solicitor, unless they were objected to, or the attention of the Judge called to them at the time. This does not appear to have been done in this case, and the objection was lost. State v. Suggs, 89 N. C., 557. Although there was no exception taken to the charge of the Court at the time, the Court had refused to give the first instruction asked by the defendant, which was as follows, to-wit: “That there was a fatal variance between the allegation and the proof, in that the indictment alleges the perjury to have been committed on the 14th day of February, in an Inferior Court, then and there holden, in a certain criminal action, in which the State was plaintiff and James Green, Troy Green, and Daniel Peterson were defendants, charged with an unlawful assault upon J. C. Lewis, while the record of the said described Court of February Term, 1884, fails to show any such trial.”
The records of the February Term, 1884, did not show that a trial of the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steele
...Warren v. Makely, 85 N. C. 15; Horah v. Knox, 87 N. C. 483; State v. Suggs, 89 N. C. 527; State v. Sheets, 89 N. C. 543; State v. Lewis, 93 N. C. 581; State v. Powell, 94 N. C. 965; State v. Speaks, 94 N. C. 865; Holly v. Holly, 94 N. C. 96; State v. Powell, 106 N. C. 635, 11 S. E. 191; Hud......
-
State v. Steele
... ... He did not object at ... the proper time. It is now too late. Morgan v ... Smith, 77 N.C. 37; Harrison v. Chappell, 84 ... N.C. 258; Warren v. Makely, 85 N.C. 15; Horah v ... Knox, 87 N.C. 483; State v. Suggs, 89 N.C. 527; ... State v. Sheets, 89 N.C. 543; State v ... Lewis, 93 N.C. 581; State v. Powell, 94 N.C ... 965; State v. Speaks, 94 N.C. 865; Holly v ... Holly, 94 N.C. 96; State v. Powell, 106 N.C ... 635, 11 S.E. 191; Hudson v. Jordan, 108 N.C. 10, 12 ... S.E. 1029; Byrd v. Hudson, 113 N.C. 203, 18 S.E ... 209; State v. Tyson, 133 N.C. 692, 45 S.E ... ...
-
State v. Snipes
... ... Chief Justice Ruffin by commending a statute which merely ... simplified the form of indictments intended to disregard this ... fundamental doctrine and to "drive a coach and six" ... through the organic law. State v. Simons, 68 N.C ... 378; State v. Ray, 92 N.C. 810; State v ... Lewis, 93 N.C. 581; State v. Cline, 150 N.C ... 854, 64 S.E. 591; State v. Whedbee, 152 N.C. 770, 67 ... S.E. 60, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 363; State v ... Wilkerson, 164 N.C. 432, 79 S.E. 888 ... It is ... suggested, however, that a defect in the verdict was not ... presented on ... ...
-
State v. Wilkerson
...of the accusation against him and to be tried accordingly. State v. Ray, 92 N. C. 810; State v. Sloan, 67 N. C. 357; State v. Lewis, 93 N. C. 581; Clark's Cr. Proc. 150. We think that there is evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction upon the present indictment, but the jury must be so g......