Page 360 |
Previous | 360 of 847 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
336 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS [I9
Highway Comm. v. Ferry
COURT: Inasfar as answering that question, you did
take into consideration the entire area before and then you
considered afterwards the diminution or reduction in size
and you still came to the figure that you gave?
A. Yes, sir."
[2] Again in the court's charge to the jury we find an em-phasis
placed upon the type of witnesses appearing on behalf
of the Highway Commission as contrasted to the laymen who
testified on behalf of the landowners. The court stated in its
charge :
"Now, at this point I want to instruct you that there
are witnesses who are termed value or appraisal witnesses.
In a suit such as this value or appraisal witnesses are those
that by reason of their training, experience, knowledge and
ability, have specid qualifications in that particular field
in this case having to do with real estate values and in this
case you have heard the testimony of various real estate
appraisers, both professional and others that have dealt in
real estate on their own behalf. In weighing the testimony
of these witnesses, you should consider their training, ex-perience,
knowledge and ability, and you may give to their
testimony and opinions such weight as you reasonably be-lieve
that the testimony is entitled to."
The requirement in North Carolina that a trial judge shall
refrain from in any way intimating his opinion to the jury has
been before the appellate courts innumerable times. Sometimes
it has been held that the participation of the trial judge in the
trial is not prejudicial as in Andrews v. Andrews, 243 N.C. 779,
92 S.E. 2d 180 (1956). In other cases it has been held to be
prejudicial. While G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a) refers to the judge's
charge, nevertheless, the admonition has always been construed
to forbid the judge to convey to the jury in any manner at any
stage of the trial his opinioln on the facts in evidence. In Re Will
of Bartlett, 235 N.C. 489, 70 S.E. 2d 482 (1952).
In Upchurch v. Funeral Home, 263 N.C. 560, 140 S.E. 2d 17
(1965), Justice Moore states :
"The slightest intimation from the judge as to the
weight, importance or effect of the evidence has great
weight with the jury, and, therefore, we must be careful
to see that neither party is unduly prejudiced by any ex-
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.019, Spring Session 1973 - Fall Session Session 1973] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 19, Spring Session 1973 - Fall Session Session 1973. Cited as 19 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 37.5 MB; 848 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_019.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 360 |
| Full Text | 336 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS [I9 Highway Comm. v. Ferry COURT: Inasfar as answering that question, you did take into consideration the entire area before and then you considered afterwards the diminution or reduction in size and you still came to the figure that you gave? A. Yes, sir." [2] Again in the court's charge to the jury we find an em-phasis placed upon the type of witnesses appearing on behalf of the Highway Commission as contrasted to the laymen who testified on behalf of the landowners. The court stated in its charge : "Now, at this point I want to instruct you that there are witnesses who are termed value or appraisal witnesses. In a suit such as this value or appraisal witnesses are those that by reason of their training, experience, knowledge and ability, have specid qualifications in that particular field in this case having to do with real estate values and in this case you have heard the testimony of various real estate appraisers, both professional and others that have dealt in real estate on their own behalf. In weighing the testimony of these witnesses, you should consider their training, ex-perience, knowledge and ability, and you may give to their testimony and opinions such weight as you reasonably be-lieve that the testimony is entitled to." The requirement in North Carolina that a trial judge shall refrain from in any way intimating his opinion to the jury has been before the appellate courts innumerable times. Sometimes it has been held that the participation of the trial judge in the trial is not prejudicial as in Andrews v. Andrews, 243 N.C. 779, 92 S.E. 2d 180 (1956). In other cases it has been held to be prejudicial. While G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a) refers to the judge's charge, nevertheless, the admonition has always been construed to forbid the judge to convey to the jury in any manner at any stage of the trial his opinioln on the facts in evidence. In Re Will of Bartlett, 235 N.C. 489, 70 S.E. 2d 482 (1952). In Upchurch v. Funeral Home, 263 N.C. 560, 140 S.E. 2d 17 (1965), Justice Moore states : "The slightest intimation from the judge as to the weight, importance or effect of the evidence has great weight with the jury, and, therefore, we must be careful to see that neither party is unduly prejudiced by any ex- |
