Chowan County NcArchives Court.....Goodmans, Administrator V Armistead 1825
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 January 21, 2009, 2:09 am

Source: Cases Argued And Determined Supreme Court Of Nc
Written: 1825

December Term, 1825

GOODMAN'S ADMINISTRATOR v. ARMISTEAD.

From Chowan.

A subpoena is good which is tested in a certain year of American Independence, 
though the year of our Lord is not named.

This was a sci. fa. to the defendant as a defaulting witness, to which he 
appeared and pleaded, "nul tiel record, never summoned, prevented by sickness." 
The jury found the issues for the plaintiff, and the Court adjudged there was 
such a record, and gave judgment for plaintiff: whereupon defendant appealed to 
this Court.

The evidence that defendant was summoned was a subpoena, perfect in all its 
parts, and regular, save that the year in which it issued was not named; it 
being tested "the 7th day of April in the XLV year of our Independence. Anno 
Dom. 182—." This subpoena was returned by the sheriff "executed."

Hogg, for plaintiff.
L. Martin, for defendant.

Taylor, Chief Justice.—The only objection taken to this subpoena, is the 
omission of the date of the year of our Lord, or rather, the omission of the 
unit figure; but as the forty-fifth year of the independence is inserted, there 
can be no difficulty in ascertaining the other period. In England, the year of 
the king's reign forms a part of the date, to which the year of our Lord is 
regularly and usually added; but if the latter were omitted, the year of the 
reign being a matter of so much notoriety, is considered sufficient always to 
supply the omission. The Court will always notice what is the year of our Lord, 
from a statement of the year of the reign; for where a deed was declared upon 
as bearing date the 26th August, 13 Will. 3, and upon oyer, the date actually 
in the deed was 26th August, 1701; it was held to be no variance, and it must 
so be understood from the first date. (2Ld. Raym. 795.) The era of our 
independence is a more certain rule for the computation of time, than the year 
a king begins his reign, as being more familiarly known to the mass of 
citizens.

And as the year of our Lord may be ascertained by the year of the reign, so 
where the latter is omitted, it is sufficient even in an indictment, if the 
time be ascertained by other means. Kelyng 10, 11. Upon the whole, it cannot be 
doubted that this is sufficient evidence of the party being subpoenaed.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.

Approved. Cherry v. Woolard, 23 N. C., 438; Freeman v. Lewis, 27 N. C., 91; 
Merrill v. Barnard, 61 N. C., 569.

Additional Comments:
North Carolina Reports, Volume 11
Cases Argued and Determined in the SUPREME COURT of NORTH CAROLINA.
For December Term 1825 and June Term 1826 
by Francis L Hawks (Vol. IV)
Annotated by Walter Clark
Richmond: James E Goode Printing Company, Printers
1897

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/chowan/court/goodmans1390gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/

File size: 3.4 Kb