State v. . Holloway

Faircloth, C. J.: On the trial, the defendant Holloway was introduced in his own behalf as a witness, and testified. In his charge, his Honor told the jury “they had a right to scrutinize closely the testimony of the defendants, and receive it with grains of allowance, on account of their interest in the event of the action.” To this the defendants excepted as error, and we think the exception is well taken. This charge is capable of misleading the jury into the impression or belief that the evidence of interested parties is to be to some extent discredited, although the jury may think the witness is honest and has told the truth. His Honor should have gone further and explained to the jury, after having properly called their attention to the interested relation of the witness, that, if they believed the witness to be credible, then they should give to his testimony the same weight as other evidence of other witnesses. As further expressive of our opinion, we will copy the charge given and approved by this Court in State v. Boon, 82 N. C., 637. “That such evidence [of relation] must be taken with some degree of allowance, and the jury should not give it the same weight as that of disinterested witnesses, but the rule which regards it with suspicion does not reject it or necessarily impeach it; and if, from the testimony, or from it and the other facts and circumstances in the case, the jury believe that ruch near relations have *733 sworn the truth, then they are entitled to as full credit as any other witnesses.” See, also, the approved charge in State v. Byers, 100 N. C., 518, and the cases there cited. There were other questions argued before us but as we must order a new trial, we will not enter into them except to say we think the second count in the indictment is sufficient under Code, Section 1070. Yenire de Novo.