Court Opinion

ID: 9810382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:48:51.788638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:53.584969
License: Public Domain

*104Clark, C. J.,
concurring. The rulings of this Court are uniform, that a certiorari will issue to send up the exceptions to the charge if filed within ten days after adjournment of Court, because filing such exceptions is the act of appellant and the exceptions are a part of the record. Love v. Elliott, 107 N. C., 718. But as to all matters transpiring during the trial, if counsel cannot agree upon a statement, the Judge settles the case and the case thus settled is conclusive. This Court has no power to examine witnesses and find the facts differently, nor can we command the Judge to state the facts differently, for he acts under the obligation of his duty and oath of office. All we can do is to give him an opportunity, and it is but reasonable that we will do this only when it appears, upon affidavit, that there has been an inadvertence on the part of the Judge. If this is denied by the other side, the matter is presumed to be as the Judge has stated it, and the certiorari ought not to issue unless it appear by a statement from the Judge that he will probably make the correction, if given the opportunity. This ruling has never been based upon any idea of courtesy to the Judge, but upon the principle) of Magna Charla that we “will not delay justice.” If the appellant has shown any diligence whatever he has always ample time — for the case must be docketed and printed at least a week before it is called for argument — in which to make the application to the Judge and learn whether or not he will make the correction if given the opportunity. Certainly if the appellant will not take the trouble to- write a letter to the Judge he ought not to get a delay of six months upon a suggestion of error in the Judge’s case on appeal when he was, or could have been, present when the case was settled and his averment of inadvertent omission is denied by counter affidavit. To give such delays to an appellant upon a vague statement that he believes the Judge will make a correction, when if there is the slightest diligence shown he can *105lay tbe Judge’s reply to- bis letter before us, would lead to tbe gravest abuse and a delay of several months in almost any case in which delay was desired by a party. This ruling lias been uniform. Smith, C. J., Porter v. Railroad, 97 N. C., 65, 2 Am. St. Rep., 272, and cases there cited; MacRae, J., Allen v. McLendon, 113 N. C., 319, and cases cited; Broadwell v. Ray, 111 N. C., 457; Lowe v. Ellioit, 107 N. C., 718 ; Bank v. Bridgers, 114 N. C., 107, and very many other cases, both before and since Clark’s Code (3 Ed.), p. 936. The ruling in this Court has been uniform (but there is no “rule of court” on the subject), and it seems to' be the uniform practice in all other jurisdictions — and for the same reason. A contrary practice would be unjust to the appellant and fruitful of unnecessary delays and expense. By the slightest diligence the appellant can always ascertain whether the Judge would probably make the correction and lay that fact before us in making his application — in which ea.se it is always allowed.