Forsythe v. . Sykes
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Mecklenburg. This was an potion of trespass for taking ten barrels of tar. -Plainin' on the 8th of January, 1820, purchased the tar of one Baggoi, at the kiln where it was made, and Beth «danta afterwards took it away. The Defendants, by way of justification, offered in evidence, proof that Sykes was a Constable, and that the other BofeU'iaJsts acted ass bis assistant4:, in carrying into of-feet an execuíiou ng’.iiust Baggoi’» properly.
Read the full summary
From Mecklenburg. This was an potion of trespass for taking ten barrels of tar. -Plainin' on the 8th of January, 1820, purchased the tar of one Baggoi, at the kiln where it was made, and Beth «danta afterwards took it away. The Defendants, by way of justification, offered in evidence, proof that Sykes was a Constable, and that the other BofeU'iaJsts acted ass bis assistant4:, in carrying into of-feet an execuíiou ng’.iiust Baggoi’» properly. The warrant against P/iggot appeared io have been executed, aud on it wore tine following endorsement.-}: 44 Tb» !'!;!Íuí¡íÍ' pioved In:: (tel >í tbí the…
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, Chief-Justice.
The objertton made to the executions is, that they wore not directed as the law reunites. It is not ídaifíl in the record whether the judgment was mitten on the same paper with the warrantor not, but it is to be presumed that it was, since it is not probable that another Magistrate would hate issued an execution «pon the judgment alone, without seeing that, a. warrant had been returned, executed against the Defendant.
That a warrant was issued, and exeemied, appears frena the case, and that it was directed iu the manner re quired by law, seems plain from this, that no…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Patton v. . MarrSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1853