Opinion
(January Term, 1815.)
Where a suit had been depending several terms, and one of the defendants married, her husband, who was made a party, was permitted on sufficient affidavit, to remove the cause to another county for trial.
SINCE the last continuance of this cause Keziah Knowis, one of the defendants, intermarried with Hance Baker, who, at Fall Term, 1814, was made a defendant, and thereupon moved for a removal of the suit upon an affidavit which stated, in substance, that he did not (197) believe he could have a fair and impartial trial in that county; that the subject of the suit had been much talked of, and improper impressions made as to his case, which would operate injuriously on the trial of the issues; that his wife, the party principally concerned, had resided at a distance from that county for some years, and only now became conusant of these facts, and the deponent avails himself of this first opportunity of procuring a removal.
The motion was overruled by Lowrie, J., from whose decision the defendant appealed.
It is essential to the due administration of justice that the parties to a suit should have a proper degree of confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the jurors who are to pass on their rights.
We entertain no doubt but that the merits of this application come clearly within the just interpretation of the acts of Assembly authorizing the courts to remove causes from one county to another for trial.
No neglect or delay in making the application can be fairly imputed to the defendant; for although the suit has been depending for several terms, yet till he became interested in it, he had no authority to interfere in it; and the application for a removal is made at the same term at which he is made a party to the suit.
The defendant's wife living at a distance, and being ignorant of the existing impediments to a fair trial, ought not to be precluded (supposing her still unmarried) from applying for a removal of the cause.
Let the cause be sent back with directions that it be removed to some adjoining county for trial.
Cited: Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co., 180 N.C. 15.
(198)