{
  "id": 11275098,
  "name": "THE STATE v. JAMES HAWN and HARRIET POPE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hawn",
  "decision_date": "1890-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "810",
  "last_page": "811",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.C. 810"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682153
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0157-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1861,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47324419300121356
    },
    "sha256": "c31e2270f895f971cd73483de93f80451c25d876e5c9abb23a590de1ec5d2328",
    "simhash": "1:1c77595309a744a7",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:37.064200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. JAMES HAWN and HARRIET POPE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Shepheed, J.:\nThe question put to the witness was collateral, and his answer conclusive. State v. Patterson, 74 N. C., 157. Even if the answer had not. been conclusive, it could not have been contradicted by general report.\nThere is nothing whatever in the appeal.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Shepheed, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. JAMES HAWN and HARRIET POPE.\nEvidence\u2014 Witness\u2014 Character.\n1. The answer of a witness to a question in reference to a collateral matter, put to him with a purpose to attack his credibility, is conclusive.\n2. Nor can the character of a witness be attacked by evidence that there was a general report that he was guilty of a particular offence.\nThis was an Indictment against the defendants for Fornication and Adultery, tried at Fall Term, 1889, of Catawba Superior Court, before Shipp, J.\nThe only exception taken at the time was as to the ruling of the Court on a question as to the admissibility of evidence.\nThe State introduced one Yoder as a witness, who testified to facts tending to prove the guilt of the defendants.\nOn the cross-examination of said witness he was asked if he had written a letter making a false charge against a young man, with a view to prevent him from obtaining a position as a school teacher. The witness said he had not written such a letter.\nAfterwards, the defendants introduced one Dr. Olapp, who testified that the general character of said witness (Yoder) was not good. After cross-\u00e9xamination by the Solicitor, the defendant proposed to ask the witness if there was not a general report that the witness Yoder had written a letter against a young man (being the letter alluded to on cross-examination of Yoder). The Solicitor objected; objection sustained, and the evidence excluded. Defendants excepted. There was a verdict of guilty. Judgment, and appeal by defendants.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0810-01",
  "first_page_order": 846,
  "last_page_order": 847
}