{
  "id": 1432022,
  "name": "Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corporation v. Goforth",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corp. v. Goforth",
  "decision_date": "1933-10-30",
  "docket_number": "4-3169",
  "first_page": "1098",
  "last_page": "1099",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ark. 1098"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2472,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "sha256": "5091ba6b83dd5163e0a670e6969e3be48def4e651fe4ee4077bb27deb3c2c380",
    "simhash": "1:e9977afff26e59b4",
    "word_count": 426
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:01.606684+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corporation v. Goforth."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nAppellees brought suit against appellant in the circuit court of Benton County to recover $1,200 on a fire insurance policy for the loss by fire of their household goods and furnishings which were covered by the policy and for the statutory penalty, attorney\u2019s fee and costs.\nAppellant filed an answer denying liability under the policy on the ground that appellees burned said property.\nThe cause was submitted to the jury upon the pleadings, testimony and instructions of the court, which resulted in a judgment against appellant for $1,524, including penalty and attorney\u2019s fee, from which is this appeal.\nTestimony was introduced by appellant tending to show that the fire was of incendiary origin, and that at the time of the fire the appellees were not residing in their home, but with Mrs. Goforth\u2019s father-in-law, who lived about a mile from their home. It also introduced the testimony of Ed Buckmaster to the effect that, between eight and nine o\u2019clock on the night of the fire he met a man coming from appellee\u2019s home, who spoke to him, then struck at him, and then ran away; that he chased the man for forty or fifty yards; that the man was about the same size of appellee, W. P. Goforth; that he had known W. P. Goforth all of his life. At this juncture, appellant\u2019s attorney asked the witness to state, in his judgment, who the person was he encountered. Over the objection and exception of appellant, tbe court excluded tbe question and answer on the ground that tbe witness bad theretofore stated be did not know who tbe person was. Appellant\u2019s attorney then stated that, if tbe witness were permitted to answer, be would state that, in bis judgment, tbe person be saw was appellee, W. P. Go-forth, and offered to make such proof by tbe witness. Appellees objected to tbe offer, which tbe court sustained over tbe objection of appellant.\nIn view of tbe fact that tbe witness bad known W. P. Goforth all of his life, was close to him and chased him forty or fifty yards, it was competent for him to give bis opinion as to whether it was Goforth. Tbe weight to be attached to bis opinion was for tbe jury. Tbe court committed reversible error in excluding the evidence.\nOn account of tbe error indicated, tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause is remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cravens, Cravens Friedman, for appellant.",
      "Williams & Williams, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corporation v. Goforth.\n4-3169.\nOpinion delivered October 30, 1933.\nCravens, Cravens Friedman, for appellant.\nWilliams & Williams, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1098-01",
  "first_page_order": 1118,
  "last_page_order": 1119
}