Legal Opinion

Scott v. . McDonald

Superior Court of North Carolina

Decided July 5, 1799Published

1Opinion

It should not be given to them as evidence (99) Requiring the oath of the defendant is not for the purpose of making evidence for himself, but in order to compel him to confess for the benefit of the complainant what otherwise perhaps he could not prove.

NOTE. — The case of Fetts v. Foster, post, 102, S. c., 1 N.C. supports MOORE'S opinion while Salter v. Spier, 1 N.C. and Cartwright v.Godfrey, 5 N.C. 452, are contra. But see Johnson v. Person, 16 N.C. 374, and Chaffin v. Chaffin, 21 N.C. 255; McDonald v. McLeod, 36 N.C. 221;Lewis v. Owen, ibid, 690; Jones v. Jones 36 N.C. 332, which hold that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. . OwenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1810
  2. McDonald v. . McLeodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1840
  3. Jones v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1841

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API