20 S.E. 456 | N.C. | 1894
The evidence as to the marks upon the barrels was competent to identify the packages. It was sufficient to charge the larceny of so many gallons of brandy, and as a matter of evidence to show that it was in barrels and identify them. S. v. Harris,
It was not improper for the counsel for the prosecution to comment on the fact that the defendant had witnesses present, summoned by him, but had not introduced them. S. v. Jones,
It is too late after the verdict for the defendant to raise the point that there was no evidence to go to the jury. S. v. Braddy,
That is a point which must be made in apt time. The defendant cannot lie by and thus take "two bites at the cherry." Hamlin v. Tucker,
This would be trifling with the court. Treated as an omission to (751) charge, it is not ground for exception in the absence of a prayer for instruction. See numerous cases collected in Clark's Code (2 Ed., pp. 382, 394). Treated otherwise than as an exception for omission in the charge, it is waived if not taken at the time. Taylor v. Plummer,
Without going into a detailed consideration of the evidence in this case, it is sufficient to say that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the case being submitted to the jury. Of the weight to be given it, the jury were the sole judges, subject to the supervisory power of the presiding judge to set aside the verdict, if in his judgment it was not warranted. His refusal to do so is not reviewable on appeal. This has always been settled law in this State.
No error.
Cited: S. v. Varner, ante, 745; Holden v. Strickland,
(753)