{
  "id": 11273584,
  "name": "S. H. LOWE v. J. M. DORSETT and JOHN MORGAN, Adminisistrators of John Arnold",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lowe v. Dorsett",
  "decision_date": "1899-11-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "304",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 N.C. 301"
    }
  ],
  "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": "89 N. C., 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683450
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/89/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N. C., 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275116
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/27/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 N. C., 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8687135
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/34/0151-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 5641,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.391,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7579106857969736e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7095388572847298
    },
    "sha256": "c3a8340e24dd69a998478434d4a479fe0a0ba19b6fac193184fd3b8f9a6b33d1",
    "simhash": "1:a708bca0d651843b",
    "word_count": 968
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:42:03.891072+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. H. LOWE v. J. M. DORSETT and JOHN MORGAN, Adminisistrators of John Arnold."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EaiRcuoth, C. J.\nThis action was instituted against the defendant administrator of John Arnold on the following instrument: \u201cTwelve months after date I promise to pay to S. H. Lowe the sum of six hundred dollars. This January 11, 1896. (Signed) John Arnold.\u201d\nPlea, non est faclum. On the trial several witnesses were examined as to the genuineness of the signature of John Arnold. It was admitted that the body of the instrument was in the plaintiff\u2019s handwriting. A witness was introduced by the defendant, not as an expert, to disprove the genuineness of the signature. Upon cross-examination the plaintiff put this question, \u201cLook at the word (meaning letter) O in the word promise in the body of the note, and 0 in the word Arnold in the signature, and tell the jury the difference.\u201d An objection was sustained, the witness not having been qualified as an expert. Exception.\nThe plaintiff then proposed this question, \u201cState if the o\u2019s in this signature are not straighten than the o\u2019s made ordinarily in writing.\u201d Objection sustained, and exception taken.\nNeither of these exceptions can be sustained. It is not necessary in this case to enter into the learning on the subject of \u201cexpert evidence\u201d and \u201copinion evidence,\u201d and the reason for the admission of either, in contravention of the rule that a witness must depose to facts and not express his opinion about the matter. They are exceptions to the general rule. Their evidence is competent under certain established rules, but its weight is for the jury, and its effect will be guarded by such rules, and the common sense of the jury. An interesting opinion on this subject will-be found in State v. Clark, 34 N. C., 151.\nIn the present case, the questions excluded were irrelevant, as they did npt tend to prove or disprove the issue before the jury. It being admitted that the plaintiff wrote the body of the note, suppose the witness, without objection, had answered \u201cyes,\u201d that would go to show that the plaintiff wrote the alleged signature, a result not intended or desired by the plaintiff. Again, Suppose the witness had answered \u201cno,\u201d that would tend only to show that the plaintiff did not write the signature, but it would no more show that John Arnold wrote it than John Smith or any other person wrote it. So, in either event, the question and answer could not aid the jury on the issue before them. The alleged signature without doubt could be compared with any genuine writing of John Arnold, and the similarity pointed out by expert or opinion witnesses, subject finally to the finding of the jury, but the comparison can go no further, for otherwise it might lead to an endless inquiry.\nAnother exception is to the recordation of the verdict. The issue was: \u201cDid the defendant\u2019s intestate execute the note set out in the complaint-?\u201d which was finally answered .\u201cNo.\u201d After two or three days\u2019 conference, the jury reported to the court that they could not agree. The disagreeing juror stated that, as the issue was drawn, \u201chis mind was divided on it.\u201d His Plonor again instructed the jury that, if they were satisfied by a preponderance of evidence that John Arnold signed the note, they should answer \u201cyes,\u201d otherwise \u201cno,\u201d and that if they could not be satisfied either way, they should answer the question \u201cno,\u201d as the burden was on the plaintiff. The jury retired and soon, returned with the issue answered, \u201cno.\u201d The plaintiff caused the jury to be polled, w7hen the said doubting juror said, \u201cI suppose I may say hio.\u2019 \u201d The issue and answer were read to the jury by the clerk, and the jury asked if they had agreed that said answer to the issue might be recorded as their verdict, to which all, including the said single juror, responded in the affirmative. ' Plaintiff excepted. This exception is overruled. The same exception was heard and overruled in State v. Godwin, 27 N. C., 401, and State v. Sheets, 89 N. C., 543.\nWe have carefully read the other exceptions, and they are overruled. We see nothing in them prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EaiRcuoth, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. A. Barringer, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. J. T. Morehead and B. F. Long, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. H. LOWE v. J. M. DORSETT and JOHN MORGAN, Adminisistrators of John Arnold.\n(Decided November 28, 1899.)\nEvidence \u2014 Comparison, of Handwriting \u2014 Recording Verdict.\n1. Irrelevant questions, which do not tend to prove or disprove the issue before the jury, are properly excluded.\n2. The alleged signature to a note can be compared with any genuine writing of the maker, and the similarity pointed out by expert or opinion witnesses for the consideration of the jury, but the comparison can go no- further; otherwise it might lead to endless inquiry.\n3. The jury, after being recharged by the Court, returned with the issue, as to the genuineness of the signature, answered, \u201cNo.\u201d Upon being polled, at request of the plaintiff, one of the jury said: \u201cI suppose I may say No.\u201d The Clerk read the issue and answer to the jury, and asked if they agreed that said answer might be recorded as their verdict, to which all responded in the affirmative. The ' verdict was properly received and recorded.\nCtvtl Actiojst upon a promissory note, tried before Shaw, J., at Spring Term, 1899, of the Superior Court of RANDOLPH County. A single issue was submitted to the jury.\nBid the defendant intestate execute the note set out in the complaint ?\nTo which the jury made answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\nThere was judgment in favor of defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed.\nThe exceptions to the evidence and the reception and recording the verdict, taken and noted for the plaintiff, sufficiently appear in the opinion.\nMr. J. A. Barringer, for appellant.\nMessrs. J. T. Morehead and B. F. Long, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 333,
  "last_page_order": 336
}