State v. . Varner
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Indictment for fornication and adultery, tried before Boykin, J., and a jury, at Spring Term, 1894, of Lincoln Superior Court. The defendants were convicted and the feme defendant appealed. The facts necessary to an understanding of the opinion appear therein.
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.:
There was no exception taken at the trial, but the defendant excepted specifically to the charge after verdict. This she had a right to do. Lowe v. Elliott, 107 N. C., 718, and other cases cited in Clark’s Code (2d Ed., p. 388).. The first exception that on the whole charge the Court presented the case in a manner to prejudice the jury against the defendant, should have indicated some particular in which harm was done; besides, it is not sustained by an examination of the charge set up. The second, third, fourth and fifth exceptions are for alleged omissions to charge. This is not…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lowe v. . ElliottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. . StubbsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- State v. . ChancySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- State v. . EliasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
3Cited by9 opinions
- Patterson v. . MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- State v. GastonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- State v. Worley.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- State v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- State v. . GrovesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.