{
  "id": 8692390,
  "name": "John Barnes v. Turner Dickinson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barnes v. Dickinson",
  "decision_date": "1827-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "346",
  "last_page": "347",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Dev. 346"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. 346"
    }
  ],
  "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": 135,
    "char_count": 1616,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.389,
    "sha256": "bc4c690111cf152f4fec99af0aa5282f404de99db5e48b3b1b882401f1bc2a7e",
    "simhash": "1:2a66a1cb4a219a68",
    "word_count": 285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:07.907129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Barnes v. Turner Dickinson,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hax.Ii, Judge.\nIt does not appear that Cooke had such an interest in the cause as to render him incompetent.\nAs to what Rebecca Hicks tol$ the Plaintiff, relative to her deposition, he had ample time to avail himself of it (if that could be done) on the trial \u00bf he might also then have objected to her deposition, because it was in the handwriting of Cooke, if that objection would have availed him. I think the Judge did right in not granting a new trial for these reasons.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hax.Ii, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The case was submitted by Gaston, for the Plaintiff, and by Badger, for the Defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Barnes v. Turner Dickinson,\nFrom Wayne.\nDetinue, tried before his itonor, Judge Donnere, and aft, r a verdict for the Defendant, the Plaintiff moved for a new trial upon the following grounds :\n1st. That one Cooke, who had been examined as a witness .for the Defendant, was interested in the event of the cause, and that this interest was not discovered by the Plaintiff, until after the Jury had returned their verdict.\n\u2022 2d. That the Deposition of oue Rebecca. Hicks had been read for the Defendant, which was in the handwriting of the witness Cooke.\n3d. That the witness Rebecca Hicks, had declared to the Plaintiff before the trial of the suit, that she was illiterate, and knew nothing of the contents of the deposition.\nThe Defendant filed the affidavit of Cooke, the witness, who swore that the only way in which he was interested in the cause, arose from the fact that his father was the bail of the Defendant, and that his father was still alive. His Honor discharged tlie rule, and the Plaintiff appealed.\nThe case was submitted by Gaston, for the Plaintiff, and by Badger, for the Defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0346-01",
  "first_page_order": 346,
  "last_page_order": 347
}