State v. . Phipps
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Indietment — Fcrnieation and Adultery — Witness. IkdictmeNt against the defendant and Margaret Locklear for Fornication and Adultery, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of GuileoRD Superior Court, before Kerr, J. On the trial of the case, the Solicitor for the State entered a noil. pros. as to Margaret Locklear and introduced her as a witness against the defendant who objected on the ground that she was incompetent.
Read the full summary
Indietment — Fcrnieation and Adultery — Witness. IkdictmeNt against the defendant and Margaret Locklear for Fornication and Adultery, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of GuileoRD Superior Court, before Kerr, J. On the trial of the case, the Solicitor for the State entered a noil. pros. as to Margaret Locklear and introduced her as a witness against the defendant who objected on the ground that she was incompetent. His Honor overruled the objection, and upon her evidence the jury rendered a'verdict, of guilty. Rule for new trial. Rule discharged. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
FaiR,clotii, J.
The defendant and Margaret Locklear wrere indicted for fornication and adultery.
The Solicitor entered a nolle prosequi as to Locklear and introduced her as a witness against' the defendant to prove the offence charged.
Was she a competent witness'for that purposed» the question ? She was not until the Act of 1866, Bat. Rev. eh. 43, § 14, abrogating the long settled rules of evidence, was passed which made her evidence admissible. State v. Rose, Phil. 406.
The Act of 1869-70, eh. 177, repeals the above Act in its application to criminal matters and restored the common law rule of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Powell v. StricklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- State v. . GuestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- Powell v. . StricklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- State v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.