While in the case on appeal defendant appellant groups twenty-four assignments of еrror, Numbers 1 to 24, both inclusive, based upon exceptions of like corresponding numbers, his brief filed in this Cоurt states three questions as involved on this appeal, the first as arising upon eight assignments of error, the second upon two, and the third upon one.
These assignments of error will be treated as grouped. But other assignments of error based on exceptions in the record not set out in aрpellant’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, arе taken as abandoned by him. Rule 28 of Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court.
I. The assignments of errоr first grouped by appellant in his brief are numbers 3, 8,11,12,14,15 and 16, relating to exceptions of like and corresponding numbers, to the trial court admitting certain evidence for corroboration when at the time there had not been any substantive evidence on the points in question which could then bе corroborated by other testimony.
“Although the usual and more orderly proceeding in the devеlopment of a conspiracy is to establish the fact of the existence, and then the сonnection of the defendant with it, yet the conduct of the trial and the order in which the testimony shall be introduced must rest largely in the sound discretion of the presiding judge, and if at the close of the еvidence every constituent of the offense charged is proved, the verdict rested therеon will not be disturbed,” so declared this Court in opinion by
Smith, C. J.,
in
S. v. Jackson,
Moreover, in civil cases this Court uniformly holds that the order of proof on trials in the Superior Court is a rule of practice, and not of law, and it may be departed from whenever the court in its discretion considers it necessary to prоmote justice. See McIntosh N. C. P. & P., 564, p. 711.
D’Armour v. Hardware Co.,
In the light of the rule of practice so enunciated, apрlied to the matters covered by the assignments of error under consideration, error is not made to appear. It is seen that the trial judge was careful to properly instruct the jury when objеction was entered.
II. Another group of assignments of error Numbers 22 and 24 is based upon exceptions to portions of the charge as given, under which it is contended in the brief of appellаnt, that the court failed to charge the jury as required by G.S. 1-180.
In this connection, it appears that there is in the record no assignment of error to the effect that the court failed to state in а plain and
*215
correct manner the evidence given in the case and to declare аnd explain the law arising thereon as required by G.S. 1-180. And where there is no assignment of error in the record for failure of the court to state the evidence and declare and explain the law arising thereon, exception on this ground will not be considered on appeal.
S. v. Spivey,
III. The third and final question involved, as stated in brief of appellant, is this: “Should the defendant’s motion for nonsuit have been granted for the reasоn that the State has failed to prove its case against the defendant as is required in subornation of perjury cases?”
This question relates to assignment of error Number 17, which is based upon exception of like number, to the action of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, renewed at the close of all the evidence. And judging from the phraseology of the question it may be inferred that defendant directed his motion only to the second count. But if not a reading оf the evidence in case on appeal reveals sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury on the first count, that is — as to the charge of conspiracy to suborn perjury.
Moreover, the Attorney-General contends that the present case is distinguishable from thе
Sailor case,
Thus after full consideration of the matters and things presented this Court finds in the trial below
No error.