Court Opinion

ID: 9580137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:02:15.483818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:03.824258
License: Public Domain

Justice Copeland
dissenting.
Reluctantly, I must dissent from the scholarly opinion of the majority.
The State brings this action to recover two bills of indictment signed by William Hooper, one of the three signers of the Declaration of Independence on behalf of North Carolina. The State having brought the action must carry the burden of proof to establish title to the documents. The State has shown that there were two bills of indictment signed by William Hooper in 1767 and 1768. The only other thing that has been shown by the State is their presence in private hands over 206 years later. What happened to them in the meantime is just one big question mark.
It is well known that most of the discoveries of old papers and records are made by private citizens. To permit the State to ride freely on the backs of private individuals and libraries who have expended their efforts and money to recover and preserve these documents and records, without any reimbursement, does not strike me as fair. The net result of the majority opinion will be to drive documents and records underground and out of the State. I do not consider this good public policy.
I believe the dissenting opinion of Judge Britt of the Court of Appeals puts this case in the proper perspective. Since the State has failed to carry the burden of proof in this instance, I would reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court.
Justice MOORE joins in this dissenting opinion.