majority"> Stacy, C. J.

The case presents little more than a disputed question of fact. The exceptions all relate to the charge. While there may be some slight inaccuracies in stating portions of the evidence, they were not *759 called to the judge’s attention, and, in the main, are really not important. S. v. Sterling, 200 N. C., 18, 156 S. E., 96. Nor did the defendant think so at the time. Considered contextually and as a whole, the defendant has no just cause to complain either at the context or the form of the charge. It is free from reversible error. S. v. Johnson, 207 N. C., 273, 176 S. E., 581. A detailed consideration of the exceptions would only result in the restatement of familiar principles. The exceptions are not sustained.

The recitation of the State’s contention that the prosecutrix was “corroborated in every detail by Mildred "Williams,” defendant’s witness, and that the defendant who put her on the stand “vouches for her veracity,” to which the defendant excepts, is not in violation of the statute, C. S., 564, prohibiting an expression of opinion on the part of the judge, for the court was here giving the State’s contention in regard to the matter. If thought to be erroneous or misleading, it should have been called to the court’s attention at some appropriate time before the issue was submitted to the jury. S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737. This was not done.

The case is controlled by the principles announced in S. v. Jessup, ante, 620. Compare S. v. Blue, ante, 612.

The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress