Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

100 N.C. 528

6 S.E 372

State v. Bailey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 15, 1888

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1888-02-15

INDICTMENT for forgery, tried before Clark, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1887, of Iredell Superior Court. The indictment charges the defendant with the forging, with intent to defraud, a certain written receipt, purporting to be an acknowledgment of the payment of money, upon a debt due by him, in form as follows : “ Rec’d of W. T. Bailey eight hundred dollars on land, to be credited on his land note, this May 16th, 1883. A. D. GAGE.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“error cannot be assigned and become the subject of review in an omission or neglect to give a specific instruction, even when proper in itself, unless asked, and thus called to the attention of the judge in order that he may rule thereon.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Bethea v. . R. R.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1917

3 state decisions

101888189019001910decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, C. J.,

¶1(after stating the facts). 1. It is a well understood rule of practice upon appeals, reasserted time and again by this Court, that error cannot be assigned and become the subject of review in an omission or neglect to give a specific instruction, even when proper in itself, unless asked, and thus called to the attention of the Judge in order that he may rule thereon. This is just to the Court and opposing counsel, and indispensable to a fair trial and to prevent surprise. Simpson v. Blount, 3 Dev., 34; Brown v. Morris, 4 D. & B., 429; State v. O’Neal, 7 Ired., 251; Arey v. Stephenson, 12 Ired., 34; Hice v. Woodard, Ibid., 293, and more recent cases.

¶22. Upon the findings of fact by the Judge, there was no such misconduct as in law to vitiate the verdict, and the setting it aside upon other ground was a matter of discretion, not reviewable here.

¶33. We find no ground for arresting judgment in the form *535of the indictment, and no defects have been pointed out in the argument.

¶4These being the only grounds contained in the -record upon which, in the appeal, we are required to review the judgment, it must be and is affirmed.

¶5No error.

/100/nc/528 · .json · Public domain