Wake County, NC - State v. Samuel Jackson & Jesse Davis, 1819

                         ~~~~~~~~~~

                 North Carolina Supreme Court
          The State v. Samuel Jackson and Jesse Davis
                          From Wake

A scire facias issued to shew cause why a forfeiture should not be made 
absolute. The Defendants showed cause, and the County Court remitted 
the forfeiture. The Solicitor for the State appealed to the Superior 
Court. In that Court, the case must be heard de novo; and the 
Defendants shew cause in the same manner as the County Court.

The defendants were under recognizance to appear at Wake County Court, 
at February Term, 1818; they failed to appear, and their recognizances 
were forfeited. Scire faciases were issued, and upon their appearing in 
Court and shewing cause, their forfeitures were remitted. From this 
judgment of the County Court, the Solicitor for the State appealed to 
the Superior Court, and the presiding Judge enquired of the Attorney 
General what reason he had to offer, why the judgment of the County 
Court should not be affirmed. The Attorney General contended, that as 
this was an appeal, there must be a trial de novo in the Superior Court 
and that the defendant should be compelled to shew cause why their 
forfeiture should not be made absolute, in the same manner as if the 
scire faciases had issued from the Superior Court. The Judge was of 
opinion, that the Attorney General must shew that the judgment of the 
County Court was wrong; and that not being shewn, the judgment of the 
County Court was affirmed, and the Attorney General appealed to this 
Court.

Henderson, Judge: Upon an appeal from the County to the Superior Court, 
the law directs that there shall be a trial de novo; that is, it shall 
be tried in the same manner as it should have been tried in the County 
Court. On the motion to remit the forfeiture in the County Court, the 
Defendants were bound to shew some reason or cause wherefore it should 
be remitted. When the case came into the Superior Court, upon an 
appeal, the Defendants should again, as in County Court, have shewn the 
reason wherefore their forfeiture should be remitted. The opinion, 
therefore, of the presiding Judge, was erroneous in affirming the 
judgment of the County Court, merely because the State did not shew it 
to be wrong. He should have heard the case de novo. The judgment of the 
Superior Court must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded to the 
Superior Court, with instructions to hear it de novo.

Source: North Carolina Reports – May Term, 1819

______________________________________________________________________

Copyright. All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm

This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by
Guy Potts - gpotts1@nc.rr.com
______________________________________________________________________