Case Name: P. G. BUMGARNER vs. JOHN MANNEY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1849-08
Citations: 10 Ired. 121
Docket Number: 
Parties: P. G. BUMGARNER vs. JOHN MANNEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
P. G. BUMGARNER vs. JOHN MANNEY.
Tha record of the removal of a cause from one County to another is not relevant nor proper evidence, to he submitted to the jury on the trial of the case, and counsel have no right to draw any inference from it in their remarks to the jury.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Lincoln County, at the Special Term in July 1849, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.
This .case originated in the County of Catawba, where the parties lived, and was removed by the plaintiff to the Superior Court of Lincoln. On the trial, the defendant’s counsel stated to the jury, that the plaintiff was not willing to try his case in the County of Catawba, where he lived and was known, but had it removed to the County of Lincoln. The plaintiff’s counsel objected, that there wras no evidence before the Court, how the case got to that Court. The defendant’s counsel then offered to read the certified copy of the record of the case sent from Catawba. This was objected to. The Court decided, that the record was in evidence, and that the defendant’s counsel had a right to allude to it in his remarks if he thought proper. Verdict for the defendant, judgment and appeal;
Boyden, for the plaintiff
Craige, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Nash, J.
We think his Honor erred. The record of the case was not in evidence before the jury and could not be. It neither proved nor had it a tendency to prove any issue, which was or could be submitted to the jury With the motives of the plaintiff in removing his case to the County of Lincoln, they had nothing to do. It would be a rare thing, that the law has authorized a party to remove a case, for the purpose of procuring a fair and impartial trial, if this, liberty, which the law secures to him, is to operate the very evil the law intended to remedy. For what purpose was the fact of the removal brought to the notice of the jury ? The counsel told them, to show them, that the plaintiff was not willing to be tried by those who knew him. If this was a case, in which the plaintiff's character was in issue, the law has pointed out how it is to be proved ; certainly not in this way. The remarks of the defendant's counsel were irrelevant and not supported by any testimony in the case, and the only effect they were calculated to have was to mislead the jury. The Court ought to have stopped the counsel, or, if he did not think proper to interrupt the course of his remarks^ always an unpleasant duty, he ought to have instructed the jury to lay them aside entirely in making up their verdict. This, however was not done, but by ruling, that the record was in evidence, and that the counsel had a right to remark upon it, the Judge added the sanction and weight of his authority. In this we think he erred. The judgment must be reversed and a venire de novo awarded.
Per Curiam.
Judgment réversed and venire, de novo.