{
  "id": 11275281,
  "name": "THE STATE v. ANDREW BERRIER and GRANT BERRIER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Berrier",
  "decision_date": "1890-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "856",
  "last_page": "857",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.C. 856"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 94,
    "char_count": 1145,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "sha256": "f4dbb1cc25f12540db2f4e663a55e7a3964bc5b37602a936f32dc99b8bd6912c",
    "simhash": "1:6cb3b6b96a29c1bd",
    "word_count": 189
  },
  "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. ANDREW BERRIER and GRANT BERRIER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nA witness for the State was asked, on cross-examination, as to her feelings towards the defendants. She answered that they were not friendly. She was then asked if there was not a bitter feud between her family and the family of the defendants. On objection by the State, the question was excluded, and defendants excepted. The last question was relevant and admissible only to lay the foundation on which to base the further question, whether witness was not unfriendly to the defendants. As she had already answered that inquiry direct, the latter question could serve no purpose, and was properly excluded.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General and Mr. R. H. Battle, for the State.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. ANDREW BERRIER and GRANT BERRIER.\nEvidence\u2014 Witness.\nA witness having stated, npon cross-examination, that the relations between her and the defendant were unfriendly, it was not error to refuse to permit the further inquiry, whether there was not a bitter feud between her family and that of the defendant, to be made.\nCeiminal actioN, tried at September Term, 1890,of Davidson Superior Court, Bynum, J., presiding.\nThe Attorney General and Mr. R. H. Battle, for the State.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0856-01",
  "first_page_order": 892,
  "last_page_order": 893
}