State v. Sherman
| Decision Date | 27 December 1894 |
| Citation | 20 S.E. 711,115 N.C. 773 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. SHERMAN. |
Jury—Qualifications of Talesman—Payment of Taxes.
Under Act 1889, c. 559, requiring the county commissioners to select as jurors, on the first Monday of September, 1892, and every four years thereafter, such persons as have paid their taxes for the preceding year, a person so selected, who had paid his land tax for the year preceding the first Monday of September, 1892, is competent as a talesman in a trial in April, 1894, though he has not paid his taxes for 1893.
Appeal from criminal court, Buncombe county; Jones, Judge.
M. Sherman, a negro, was convicted of living in adultery with a white woman as his wife, and appeals. Affirmed.
H. B. Carter, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
This case was tried at April term, 1894. The talis juror who was challenged for failure to pay his taxes for the previous year had paid his taxes for 1892. By the provisions of section 1722 of the Code as amended by Act 1889, c. 559, the county commissioners were required on the first Monday of September, 1892, to select from the tax returns of the preceding year the names of such persons only as had paid tax for the preceding year, and are of good moral character and of sufficient intelligence. Previous to the amendment, this duty was to be performed on the first Monday in September in each year; now it is to be done on the first Monday in September, 1892, and every four years thereafter. The qualification of a regular juror then was that his name should have been on the tax return for the year preceding the first Monday in September, 1892, and that he should be of good character, etc. A talis juror is required to possess the same qualifications as one of the regular panel, with the additional one of being a freeholder. State v. Carland, 90 N. C. G68; State v. Whitley, 88 N. C. G91. So it was not necessary that the talisman should have paid his tax for 1893.
We can see no merit in the second exception. The case does not purport to set out all of the testimony. The one circumstance that Hill had associated with white men, offered to prove that he himself was a white man, while standing alone, might have little weight, but was competent either as corroborative of other evidence, or as substantive evidence in itself, to be submitted to the jury. Hopkins v. Bowers, 111 N. C. 175, 1G S. E. 1.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Levy
...be delinquent at the time of trial in the payment of his taxes for the preceding year, he may be excused on this ground. State v. Sherman, 115 N. C. 773, 20 S. E. 711; State v. Davis, 109 N. C. 780, 14 S. E. 55; State v. Gardner, 104 N. C. 739, 10 S. E. 146; State v. Hargrave, 100 N. C. 484......
-
State v. Levy
...be delinquent at the time of trial in the payment of his taxes for the preceding year, he may be excused on this ground. State v. Sherman, 115 N.C. 773, 20 S.E. 711; State v. Davis, 109 N.C. 780, 14 S.E. 55; State v. Gardner, 104 N.C. 739, 10 S.E. 146; State v. Hargrave, 100 N.C. 484, 6 S.E......
-
Central Pharmacal Co. v. Salb
...Light & Power Co., 84 Ind.App. 115, 150 N.E. 116; Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Company v. Reynolds et al., 118 Ind. 170, 20 S.E. 711. The fact found by the court was a material fact, and, even if it did not go as far as the appellees contend it did, yet it is such a fact as the ......
- State v. Sherman