#### The State v. Samuel Jackson and Jesse Davis.

1 I From Wake. J

A scire facias issued to shew cause why a forfeiture should not be made absolute. The Defendants showed cause, and the County Courtremit-ted the forfeiture. The Solicitor for the State appealed to the Superior Court. In that Court, the case must be heard de novo ; and tiie Defendants shew cause in the same manner as in the County Court.

The Defendants were under recognizance to appear at Wake County Court, at February Term, 1818 5 they failed to appear, and their recognizances were forfeited. Scire fadases were issued, and upon their appearing in Court and *231shewing cause, their forfeitures were remitted. From this judgment of the County Court, the Solicitor for the State appealed to the Superior Court, and the presiding Judge enquired of the Attorney-General what reason he had to offer, why the judgment of the County Court should not be affirmed. The Attorney-General contended, that as this was an appeal, there must be a trial de novo in the Superior Court, and that the Defendants should be compelled to shew cause why then1 forfeiture should not be made absolute, in the same manner as if the scire fadases had issued from the Superior Court. The Judge was of opinion, that the Attorney-General must shew that the judgment of the County Court was wrong; and that not ■boing shewn, the judgment of the County Court was affirmed, and the Attorney-General appealed to this Court.

Heatsersok, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Upon an appeal from the County to the Superior Court, the law directs that there shall be a trial de novo ; that is, it shall be tried in the same manner as it should havebeen tried in the County Court. On the motion to remit the forfeiture in the County Court, the Defendants were bound to shew some reason or cause wherefore it should be remitted. When the case came into the Superior Court, upon an appeal, the Defendants should again, as in the County Court, have shewn the reason wherefore their forfeiture should bo remitted. The opinion, therefore, of the presiding Judge, was erroneous in affirming the judgment of the County Court, merely because the State did not shew it to be wrong. He should have heard the case de novo. The judgment of the Superior Court must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded to the Superior Court, with instructions to hear it de novo.