Parish v. . Fite
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Mecklenburg;. Rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted, because after the Jury had retired under the charge, of the Court, they came into Court and requested that further evidence- might be heard by them , when the Court permitted two witnesses to be examined, who had not bce-n previously introduced.
Read the full summary
From Mecklenburg;. Rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted, because after the Jury had retired under the charge, of the Court, they came into Court and requested that further evidence- might be heard by them , when the Court permitted two witnesses to be examined, who had not bce-n previously introduced. The facts of the case were, that the Plaintiff had brought two actions of the same nature against the Defendant, and during the examination of the witnesses in the second,, and whilst the Jury were out deliberating on the first, two new witnesses appeared in tire secondj who…
1Opinion of the CourtLocke, Judge
It is certainly the regular and proper practice, never to suffer witnessed to be introduced after the first examination, particularly after the arguments of counsel are closed. Yet we are of opinion that the discretion of the Judge must govern this rule of practice} the rule is found- ei! on the temptation, which a departure from.it would hold out for-committing the crime of perjury. Where a Case has been argued and the party discovers the points ■on which it rests, the Coui;t will not permit him to support the weak parts of his case, by a re-examination of it, and this rule ought never to be…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Miller v. . GreenwoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Hendrix v. B & L Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Featherston v. . WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
- Dodson v. . BushSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1811