Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Liles

77 N.C. 496

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1877-06-15
Topic
general

EaiRCLOTH, J. The defendants were indicted and on being ■called to answer the charge, moved to quash the indictment •on the ground that one of the grand jurors who presented the bill, at the time he was drawn as juror, had a suit pending and at issue in the Superior Court of the same County. 'The motion was allowed and the Solicitor appealed. We .-sustain the order of His Honor, and hold.that the juror was ■disqualified simply because the law is so written. Bat.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Liles. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
STATEv. LILES,77 N.C. 496(1877)
STATE v. MARTIN LILES ET ALS.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(June Term, 1877.)
Indictment — Disqualification of Juror.

Where an indictment was quashed upon the ground that one of the grand jurors who found the bill was a party to an action pending and at issue in the Superior Court:Held, not to be error. (Bat. Rev., ch. 17, sec. 229g.)
INDICTMENT for larceny, tried at Spring Term, 1877, of ANSON, beforeMcKoy, J.
The defendants moved to quash the indictment on the ground that one of the grand jurors who found the bill against them was disqualified (497) by Bat. Rev., ch. 17, sec. 229 (g), which is as follows: "If any of the jurors drawn have a suit pending and at issue in the Superior Court, the scrolls with their names must be returned into partition No. 1 of the jury box."

His Honor allowed the motion, and Pemberton, solicitor for the State, appealed.
Attorney-General for the State.No counsel for defendants.
FAIRCLOTH, J.
The defendants were indicted, and on being called to answer the charge, moved to quash the indictment on the ground that one of the grand jurors who presented the bill, at the time he was drawn as juror had a suit pending and at issue in the Superior Court of the same county. The motion was allowed, and the solicitor appealed. We sustain the order of his Honor, and hold that the juror was disqualified simply because the law is so written. Bat. Rev., ch. 17, sec. 229 (g).

In such cases the objection must be taken in apt time, as was done in the present instance.S. v. Griffice,74 N.C. 316.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.Cited: S. v. Smith,80 N.C. 411;S. v. Martin,82 N.C. 674;S. v.Haywood,94 N.C. 850.Page 357

(498)