State v. . Rogers
Supreme Court of North Carolina
OeimiNal action, before Bond, J., at September Term, 1916, of Ware. Defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
Indictment for cruelty to animals, two mules, the property of Samuel Rogers. We are compelled to grant a new trial because of a remark of the judge to the defendant while testifying as a witness for himself. The cruelty alleged was in not feeding the mules properly or sufficiently. On cross-examination of the defendant he was directed by the court to answer the questions concisely, “and not be dodging,” and defendant excepted to the use of the words, “and not be dodging.” The judge then, and afterwards in his charge, explained to the jury that he did not intend to reflect upon the witness,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Withers v. . LaneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- State v. . DickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1864
- State v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
- State v. CookSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Reiger v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- State v. PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- State v. . HartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- State v. CanipeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- State v. . BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- State v. . OwenbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.