{
  "id": 8550285,
  "name": "ANNA W. TURNER v. JOSEPH R. TURNER, SR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Turner v. Turner",
  "decision_date": "1970-08-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 7021DC380",
  "first_page": "336",
  "last_page": "338",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 336"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 716",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "728"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.C. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574055
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "587"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/256/0577-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S.E. 2d 769",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548775
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0167-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 5858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.689290459567542e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8274412909787404
    },
    "sha256": "3550b33257b609cca5a051b508cc2c9cc6f9b112fd5ba7508021de6f5ce58f64",
    "simhash": "1:8ce3f709dbf88bd3",
    "word_count": 1000
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallard, C.J., and Hedrick, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ANNA W. TURNER v. JOSEPH R. TURNER, SR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Parker, J.\nAppellant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to allow his motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence. The record before us reveals that the appellant did not state the specific grounds for his motion. \u201cA motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.\u201d G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a). This provision of the rule is mandatory. Wheeler v. Denton, 9 N.C. App. 167, 175 S.E. 2d 769. The appellant, having failed to state specific grounds for his motion, is not entitled upon this appeal to question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Nevertheless, because the Rules of Civil Procedure are only so recently effective in this State, we have reviewed the record and are of opinion there was sufficient evidence to require submission to the jury of the issues which it answered in plaintiff\u2019s favor.\nAppellant assigns as error portions of the court\u2019s charge to the jury. A number of appellant\u2019s exceptions to the charge have merit. As an example, on the issue as to whether defendant had offered such indignities to the person of plaintiff as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome, the court charged:\n\u201cTo entitle the wife to the relief the indignities offered by the husband must be such as may be expected seriously to annoy a woman of ordinary sense and temperament, and must be repeated or continued so that it may appear to have been done wilfully and intentionally or at least consciously by the husband to the annoyance of the wife.\n\u201cMrs. Turner has testified to certain indignities, and two of her children have also. It is up to you to decide the credibility of that testimony and whether or not she has sustained that burden.\u201d\nA reading of the charge as a whole leads to the conclusion that the court failed to \u201cdeclare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case\u201d and failed to state the evidence \u201cto the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto.\u201d This the court was required to do by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a) (formerly G.S. 1-180).\n\u201cThe chief purpose of a charge is to aid the jury to understand clearly the case and arrive at a correct verdict. For this reason, the Court has consistently held that G.S. 1-180 confers a substantial legal right, and imposes upon the trial judge a positive duty, and his failure to charge the law on the substantial features of the case arising on the evidence is prejudicial error, and this is true even without prayer for special instructions.\u201d Bulluck v. Long, 256 N.C. 577, 587, 124 S.E. 2d 716, 728.\nIn the case before us the jury was left to determine for itself, without adequate explanation from the court, what law arose on the evidence in the case and how that law should be applied to the evidence.\nFor the court\u2019s failure properly to instruct the jury as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nMallard, C.J., and Hedrick, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Parker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pettyjohn & Dunn, by H. Glenn Pettyjohn for plaintiff appellee.",
      "White, Grumpier & Pfefferkorn, by Fred G. Grumpier, Jr., and Joe P. McCallum, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANNA W. TURNER v. JOSEPH R. TURNER, SR.\nNo. 7021DC380\n(Filed 26 August 1970)\n1. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 50\u2014 motion for directed verdict \u2014 mandatory rule\nA motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor; this rule is mandatory. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a).\n2. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 50; Appeal and Error \u00a7 59 \u2014 motion for directed verdict \u2014 review\nSince the Rules of Civil Procedure are only so recently effective in this State, the Court of Appeals reviews the question whether there was sufficient evidence to require submission of the issues to the jury, even though appellant failed to state specific grounds for his motion for a directed verdict.\n3. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 18\u2014 alimony \u2014 child support \u2014 indignities to the wife \u2014 instructions\nJn the wife\u2019s action against her husband to obtain child custody and support, temporary and permanent alimony, and counsel fees, trial court\u2019s instructions on the issue as to whether the husband had offered such indignities to the wife as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome, held reversible error, since the jury was left to determine for itself, without adequate explanation from the court, what law arose on the evidence and how that law should be applied to the evidence.\n4. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 51\u2014 instruction \u2014 application of law to the evidence\nThe trial court is required to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case and to state the evidence to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a).\nAppeal by defendant from Clifford, District Judge, 19 January 1970 Session of Forsyth District Court.\nPlaintiff wife brought this civil action against her husband to obtain an order awarding to her custody of their three minor children, temporary and permanent alimony and child support, possession of their homeplace, use of one automobile, and counsel fees. The case was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict finding plaintiff to be the dependent spouse and defendant to be the supporting spouse as alleged in the complaint, and finding that defendant had offered such indignities to the person of plaintiff as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome. Upon the verdict and upon findings of fact by the court as to the earnings of the respective parties and as to the best interests of the children, judgment was entered awarding custody of the minor children to the plaintiff, awarding her possession of the homeplace, and ordering defendant to make monthly payments for child support and alimony and to pay a fee to plaintiff\u2019s counsel. From this judgment defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning errors.\nPettyjohn & Dunn, by H. Glenn Pettyjohn for plaintiff appellee.\nWhite, Grumpier & Pfefferkorn, by Fred G. Grumpier, Jr., and Joe P. McCallum, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0336-01",
  "first_page_order": 360,
  "last_page_order": 362
}