Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 N.C. 162

State v. Greenwood

Superior Court of North Carolina

Decided March 15, 1795

Superior Court of North Carolina · decided 1795-03-15

He was indicted of perjury, and convicted ; and bis Counsel moved for a now trial, upon the ground that,one of the jurors was riot a freeholder in this Slate. The juror had been examined before he was sworn on the jury, whether he was a freeholder or not, and answered in the, affirmative. The fact is, that he was a freeholder in South-Carolina, but not in this State. This appeared by the affidavit of the juror himself, now produced in support of the motion.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1804

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1795-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Note. — This motion came on at a subsequent term, before Judge Ashe and Judge Macay, and they disallowed the exception, but delayed giving judgment for another cause ; and at September term, 1796, the cause being tried, in which the perjure was alledged to have been committed, before Judge Williams and Judge Haywood, and they being of opinion, from the oaths of several witnesses, sworn on that trial, concurring in the same fact that Greenwood had formerly sworn to in the trial of the same cause in the County Court, that probably it was not falsely sworn by him ; they thought this might be a proper cause for a new trial, and granted a new trial accordingly on that ground.

¶2Note. — The objection with respect to tire juror, would have been a good one if taken at the proper time. Sheepshanks & Co. v. Jones, 2 Hawks, 211 But after the verdict it is too late. State v. McEntire, 2 Car. Law Rep. 287, State v. Ward, 2 Hawks, 443.

/2/nc/162 · .json · Public domain