State v. M'Leod
| Decision Date | 30 June 1821 |
| Citation | 8 N.C. 344 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. M'LEOD. |
1. The testimony of a witness taken down in writing by a magistrate cannot, on the trial of the same matter in court, be used as evidence in chief, particularly when the witness is present, but may be used to show contradictory statements made by him.
2. Misconduct on the part of a jury, to impeach their verdict, must be shown by other testimony than their own.
INDICTMENT for perjury, tried before Paxton, J., at the Spring Sessions, 1821, of SURRY. The perjury was charged to have been committed in making oath before a magistrate to obtain a warrant against one Smith for feloniously taking the horse of the defendant. The horse had been taken out of the defendant's stable after dark, and on the next day was in the possession of Smith, who was a constable, and had levied on the horse by virtue of executions in his hands against the defendant. Smith advertised the horse publicly for sale, and the defendant saw the advertisement. On the oath of the defendant, one Campbell, a magistrate, issued a warrant against Smith, on which he was apprehended, and, on examination by Campbell, discharged. The defendant was then cautioned by one Simonton of the danger of taking such oaths as he had taken. Some time afterwards, the defendant applied again to Campbell for a warrant against Smith. Campbell refused to issue it, advised the defendant to be cautious, and at the same time told him that he thought Smith committed a felony in taking the property in a clandestine manner, by night; but that, if he wished to be certain, it was advisable to go and consult the solicitor for the State in that circuit.
The defendant went away, was absent two days, returned and told Campbell that the solicitor was not at home (as was the fact), but that he had consulted Mr. Connor, an attorney, and again requested a warrant, which Campbell still refused to grant. He, however, wrote one for the defendant, and declined putting his signature to it. The defendant then applied with this warrant to another magistrate, Morrison, for his signature. Morrison at first refused, until the defendant-assured him that he had consulted Mr.Connor, and procured him to write the warrant, to which he requested Morrison's signature. Morrison then took the oath of the defendant to the warrant, which was, in substance, the same with the former one, and signed it. On this evidence the jury found the defendant guilty, and a motion for a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coffey
...cases cited by the defendant on the contrary hypothesis are inapposite. State v. Young, 60 N.C. 126; State v. Grady, 83 N.C. 643; State v. McLeod, 8 N.C. 344. After giving the record that degree of care which a capital case imposes, it is not discovered wherein any error was committed on th......
-
State v. Hollingsworth, 591
...from them be received for such purpose, and that evidence for that purpose, if admitted at all, must come from some other source. State v. McLeod, 8 N.C. 344; Bellamy v. Pippin, 74 N.C. 46; State v. Smallwood, 78 N.C. 560; State v. Brittain, 89 N.C. 481; State v. Royal, 90 N.C. 755; Lafoon ......
-
State v. De Graffenreid
...of facts on the original hearing, and "his testimony at the former trial of this case" was competent as tending to impeach him. State v. McLeod, 8 N.C. 344; Merchants Nat. Bank v. Pack, 178 N.C. 388, 100 615; Edwards v. Sullivan, 30 N.C. 302. Conversely, it would have been competent as corr......
-
State v. Graffenreid
...of facts on the original hearing, and "his testimony at the former trial of this case" was competent as tending to impeach him. State v. McLeod, 8 N.C. 344; Merchants Nat. Bank v. Pack, 178 N.C. 388, 100 S.E. 615; Edwards v. Sullivan, 30 N.C. 302. Conversely, it would have been competent as......