State v. . R. P. Roseman
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. . Boyce (N.C. 1891)
- State v. Boyce (N.C. 1891)
- State v. . Whitener (N.C. 1885)
- State v. . Marsh (N.C. 1884)
- State v. . Roseman (N.C. 1874)
- State v. Roseman (N.C. 1874)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
If the defendants were in the [adverse possession of the school house, and bonco ftde claiming it as their own, it certainly was not a crime in them to pull it down. It was, therefore important for them to prove that fact, for the words of the Statute are, “shall unlawfully and wilfully demolish, &e.” Rev. Code, ch. 34, sec. 103.
Upon the supposition that the record which was offered and rejected was not sufficient evidence of title upon an issue directly involving title it was certainly evidence tending to ex *636 plain the possession of the defendants and the tona fides of what they did.
The rejection of this evidence was error, and entitles the defendants to a venire de novo, and therefore it is not necessary that we should consider the other exceptions; as they will probably not arise again.
» There is error. Let this be certified.
Pee Cusiam. Venire de novo.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.