State v. . Tart
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBkogden, J.
The sole question presented by the record is whether the judge should have set aside the verdict by reason of the fact that one of the jurors was related to the prosecuting witness within the seventh degree ?
It has been generally held that “the finding of fact by the presiding judge, who is far better acquainted with the surroundings than we can possibly be, is conclusive, and we cannot look into the affidavits, whether one or more, to reverse such finding.” S. v. Crane, 110 N. C., 530; Radford v. Young, 194 N. C., 747; S. v. Adkins, 194 N. C., 749.
Notwithstanding, it is also true that the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. . PottsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- State v. . BradySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. . CraneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- Hinton v. . HintonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Radford v. . YoungSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. BookerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. AllredSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- State v. HooperSupreme Court of Kansas · 1934
- State v. . LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- State v. KilpatrickWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1974
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.