Let there be. a new trial, but it cannot be •court au urged by the defendant’s counsel 5 that has been Ik decided, and upon this giouud — the act of 1777, ch. 1, sec. 6, and 1779, ch. 4, sec. 1, both taken together, shew it to have been the intent of ib» legislature that these trials- should be iit the county where «.he premises lie, either upon the premises or at the bar of the county court, and notout of the county ; and for this reason they could not permit an appeal to the superior court; this court now interferes by virtue of its general superintending power in order to prevent injustice or a defect of justice ; but it will interiore no further thou absolutely necessary ; fir titese ends the verdict will be set aside and new ti id. allowed ; but that must be where the legislature ¡us directed at the bar of the county court or on the premises.
Henry v. Heritage, 3 N.C. 38, 2 Hayw. 38 (1798)
March 1798
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 38, 2 Hayw. 38
Henry vs. Heritage.
f^ERTíORÁRI in re .-nove proceedings below,-on a caviat be-'-s twéen the parties, and the affidavit stated sufficient reason for ordering a new trial, which .was not contradicted by opposite riiEthmiSo