contention error in North Carolina

2021Id. at 256–57.

2018As we **383 have previously indicated, *170 N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(a)(3) "is not a general rule that any claim not brought on direct appeal is forfeited on state collateral review" and requires the reviewing court, instead, "to determine whether the particular claim at issue could have been brought on direct review." State v. Fair , 354 N.C. 131 , 166, 557 S.E.2d 500 , 525 (2001) (quoting McCarver v. Lee , 221 F.3d 583 , 589 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1089 , 121 S.Ct. 809 , 148 L.Ed.2d 694 (2001) ), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 2332 , 153 L.Ed.2d 162 (2002). "[Ineffectiv

2018As we **383 have previously indicated, *170 N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(a)(3) "is not a general rule that any claim not brought on direct appeal is forfeited on state collateral review" and requires the reviewing court, instead, "to determine whether the particular claim at issue could have been brought on direct review." State v. Fair , 354 N.C. 131 , 166, 557 S.E.2d 500 , 525 (2001) (quoting McCarver v. Lee , 221 F.3d 583 , 589 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1089 , 121 S.Ct. 809 , 148 L.Ed.2d 694 (2001) ), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 2332 , 153 L.Ed.2d 162 (2002). "[Ineffectiv

2018As we **383 have previously indicated, *170 N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(a)(3) "is not a general rule that any claim not brought on direct appeal is forfeited on state collateral review" and requires the reviewing court, instead, "to determine whether the particular claim at issue could have been brought on direct review." State v. Fair , 354 N.C. 131 , 166, 557 S.E.2d 500 , 525 (2001) (quoting McCarver v. Lee , 221 F.3d 583 , 589 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1089 , 121 S.Ct. 809 , 148 L.Ed.2d 694 (2001) ), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 2332 , 153 L.Ed.2d 162 (2002). "[Ineffectiv

2018As we **383 have previously indicated, *170 N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(a)(3) "is not a general rule that any claim not brought on direct appeal is forfeited on state collateral review" and requires the reviewing court, instead, "to determine whether the particular claim at issue could have been brought on direct review." State v. Fair , 354 N.C. 131 , 166, 557 S.E.2d 500 , 525 (2001) (quoting McCarver v. Lee , 221 F.3d 583 , 589 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1089 , 121 S.Ct. 809 , 148 L.Ed.2d 694 (2001) ), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 2332 , 153 L.Ed.2d 162 (2002). "[Ineffectiv

2018As we **383 have previously indicated, *170 N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(a)(3) "is not a general rule that any claim not brought on direct appeal is forfeited on state collateral review" and requires the reviewing court, instead, "to determine whether the particular claim at issue could have been brought on direct review." State v. Fair , 354 N.C. 131 , 166, 557 S.E.2d 500 , 525 (2001) (quoting McCarver v. Lee , 221 F.3d 583 , 589 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1089 , 121 S.Ct. 809 , 148 L.Ed.2d 694 (2001) ), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 2332 , 153 L.Ed.2d 162 (2002). "[Ineffectiv

2018As we **383 have previously indicated, *170 N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(a)(3) "is not a general rule that any claim not brought on direct appeal is forfeited on state collateral review" and requires the reviewing court, instead, "to determine whether the particular claim at issue could have been brought on direct review." State v. Fair , 354 N.C. 131 , 166, 557 S.E.2d 500 , 525 (2001) (quoting McCarver v. Lee , 221 F.3d 583 , 589 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1089 , 121 S.Ct. 809 , 148 L.Ed.2d 694 (2001) ), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 2332 , 153 L.Ed.2d 162 (2002). "[Ineffectiv

2018As we **383 have previously indicated, *170 N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(a)(3) "is not a general rule that any claim not brought on direct appeal is forfeited on state collateral review" and requires the reviewing court, instead, "to determine whether the particular claim at issue could have been brought on direct review." State v. Fair , 354 N.C. 131 , 166, 557 S.E.2d 500 , 525 (2001) (quoting McCarver v. Lee , 221 F.3d 583 , 589 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1089 , 121 S.Ct. 809 , 148 L.Ed.2d 694 (2001) ), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 2332 , 153 L.Ed.2d 162 (2002). "[Ineffectiv

2016This Court previously concluded that the removal of the reference to the "privilege against self-incrimination" defeated a respondent's contention that the privilege was protected by the statute. *200 In re Pittman , 149 N.C.App. 756 , 761, 561 S.E.2d 560 , 565 (2002).

2016This Court previously concluded that the removal of the reference to the "privilege against self-incrimination" defeated a respondent's contention that the privilege was protected by the statute. *200 In re Pittman , 149 N.C.App. 756 , 761, 561 S.E.2d 560 , 565 (2002).

1981He didn’t want to talk to us so we were taking him back to the booking room. [Emphasis ours.] Defendant relies on the Supreme Court decisions in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 91 (1976), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), to support the contention that a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed right to remain silent warrants a new trial.

1981He didn’t want to talk to us so we were taking him back to the booking room. [Emphasis ours.] Defendant relies on the Supreme Court decisions in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 91 (1976), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), to support the contention that a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed right to remain silent warrants a new trial.

1981He didn’t want to talk to us so we were taking him back to the booking room. [Emphasis ours.] Defendant relies on the Supreme Court decisions in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 91 (1976), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), to support the contention that a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed right to remain silent warrants a new trial.

1981He didn’t want to talk to us so we were taking him back to the booking room. [Emphasis ours.] Defendant relies on the Supreme Court decisions in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 91 (1976), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), to support the contention that a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed right to remain silent warrants a new trial.

1974Although the use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in medical malpractice cases has been approved in several decisions of our Supreme Court, see Mitchell v. Saunders, 219 N.C. 178 , 13 S.E.2d 242 (1941); Pendergraft v. Royster, 203 N.C. 384 , 166 S.E. 285 (1932), we feel the following statement by Justice Higgins in Watson v. Clutts, 262 N.C. 153 , 136 S.E.2d 617 (1964) is applicable to the case at bar: "The decisions of this Court generally hold that liability in malpractice cases must be based on proof of actionable negligence.

1974Although the use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in medical malpractice cases has been approved in several decisions of our Supreme Court, see Mitchell v. Saunders, 219 N.C. 178 , 13 S.E.2d 242 (1941); Pendergraft v. Royster, 203 N.C. 384 , 166 S.E. 285 (1932), we feel the following statement by Justice Higgins in Watson v. Clutts, 262 N.C. 153 , 136 S.E.2d 617 (1964) is applicable to the case at bar: "The decisions of this Court generally hold that liability in malpractice cases must be based on proof of actionable negligence.

1974Although the use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in medical malpractice cases has been approved in several decisions of our Supreme Court, see Mitchell v. Saunders, 219 N.C. 178 , 13 S.E.2d 242 (1941); Pendergraft v. Royster, 203 N.C. 384 , 166 S.E. 285 (1932), we feel the following statement by Justice Higgins in Watson v. Clutts, 262 N.C. 153 , 136 S.E.2d 617 (1964) is applicable to the case at bar: "The decisions of this Court generally hold that liability in malpractice cases must be based on proof of actionable negligence.

1974Although the use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in medical malpractice cases has been approved in several decisions of our Supreme Court, see Mitchell v. Saunders, 219 N.C. 178 , 13 S.E.2d 242 (1941); Pendergraft v. Royster, 203 N.C. 384 , 166 S.E. 285 (1932), we feel the following statement by Justice Higgins in Watson v. Clutts, 262 N.C. 153 , 136 S.E.2d 617 (1964) is applicable to the case at bar: "The decisions of this Court generally hold that liability in malpractice cases must be based on proof of actionable negligence.

1974Although the use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in medical malpractice cases has been approved in several decisions of our Supreme Court, see Mitchell v. Saunders, 219 N.C. 178 , 13 S.E.2d 242 (1941); Pendergraft v. Royster, 203 N.C. 384 , 166 S.E. 285 (1932), we feel the following statement by Justice Higgins in Watson v. Clutts, 262 N.C. 153 , 136 S.E.2d 617 (1964) is applicable to the case at bar: "The decisions of this Court generally hold that liability in malpractice cases must be based on proof of actionable negligence.

1974Although the use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in medical malpractice cases has been approved in several decisions of our Supreme Court, see Mitchell v. Saunders, 219 N.C. 178 , 13 S.E.2d 242 (1941); Pendergraft v. Royster, 203 N.C. 384 , 166 S.E. 285 (1932), we feel the following statement by Justice Higgins in Watson v. Clutts, 262 N.C. 153 , 136 S.E.2d 617 (1964) is applicable to the case at bar: "The decisions of this Court generally hold that liability in malpractice cases must be based on proof of actionable negligence.

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1973State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509 , 160 S.E. 2d 469 ; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733 , 153 S.E. 2d 477 ; State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130 , 116 S.E. 2d 429 ; State v. Rhodes, 252 N.C. 438 , 113 S.E. 2d 917 ; State v. Holder, 252 N.C. 121 , 113 S.E. 2d 15 ; State v. Shumaker, 251 N.C. 678 , 111 S.E. 2d 878 ; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 , 111 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Moore, 247 N.C. 368 , 101 S.E. 2d 26 ; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338 , 95 S.E. 2d 876 .” State v. Virgil, supra. Conceding arguendo that the statement as to this contention was error, we fail to see how defendant could be prejudiced thereby

1971Worrell v. Credit Union, 12 N.C.

1901The defendants also cite Aycock v. Railroad, 89 N. C., 321 , as authority for tlheir contention.

1896The basis of the application to rehear and reverse the former ruling of this Court ( 116 N.C. 12 ) is the contention that there was error in holding that the children of George W.

1896Avery, J.: The basis cf the application to rehear and reverse the former ruling of this Court ( 116 N. C., 12 ) is the contention that there was error in holding that the children of George W.

1889The cases which have been decided in this Court in which the effect of such an exception in limiting the import of words that define a boundary within which it is contained, cited in the argument and reviewed in Gudger v. Hensley, 82 N. C., 481 , do not sustain the contention that such an exception as the present is inoperative and void.