From Wake. The defendant was indicted for permitting his negro slave to hire his own time, and when the cause was regularly called for trial before Norwood, Judge, the defendant was ready and urged for a trial; the Attorney Genera) directed a nolle prosequi to be entered in the case without assigning any reason therefor; and after the nol. pros, was entered, the Attorney General moved for a capias against the defendant, returnable to the next term of this Court, which was…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1825-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1967
2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
It seems, from the authorities cited, that the Attorney General has a discretionary power to enter a
nolle prosequi,
for the proper exercise of which he is responsible. We know of no case where the Court has interfered with the exercise of this power, though they certainly would do so if it were oppressively used. As to the directing another
capias
to issue returnable to the next term, the authorities assert that such process may be awarded upon the same indictment. (6
Mod.
261.
Com. Dig. “ Indictment B.”
1
Chitty C. L.
480.) We therefore think that it should have been directed in this case.
