#### COXE v. SINGLETON.

(Filed October 24, 1905).

Issues — Witnesses as to Character — Impeachment of Verdicts.

1. The issues arise upon the pleadings and not upon evidential facts, but where there are no written pleadings, it is the duty of the court to so frame the issues after hearing the evidence, as to develop the whole case and to present to the jury the real issues of fact in dispute.

2. Where the plaintiff’s witness, on cross-examination, testified to the good character of the defendant, a question on redirect examination, as to whether he had not heard that the defendant had committed certain offenses, was properly excluded.

3. An exception to the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict, because several of the jurors signed a paper to the effect that they did not fully understand the issues and the legal effect of their findings, is without merit, as jurors cannot be heard to impeach their verdict.

ActioN by Thomas C. Coxe against Eobert Singleton, heard by Judge B. F. Long and a jury, upon appeal from a Justice of the Peace, at the August Term, 1905, of the Superior Court of ANSON County.

The plaintiff alleged that he sold the defendant certain walnut lumber at a stipulated price, $20; that the defendant refused to take and pay for the spine. The defendant denied the contract, and also that the plaintiff had performed it, alleging that the lumber tendered was worthless. The court submitted the following issues: 1. Did defendants contract with plaintiff to purchase lumber from him as alleged by plaintiff? A. Yes. 2. If so, did plaintiff comply with' his part of the contract and the terms thereof, as alleged? A. No. 3. What was the value of the lumber hauled by *362plaintiff to defendants for delivery under tbe alleged contract? A. $5.

Upon tbe finding of tbe jury tbe court dismissed tbe action and tbe plaintiff appealed.

Fred J. Goxe for tbe plaintiff.

No counsel for tbe defendant.

BROWN, J.

1. Tbe plaintiff excepted to tbe issues ■ submitted. They plainly cover tbe controversy between tbe parties as disclosed by tbe evidence. Tbe issues were sufficient to enable tbe jury to intelligently find tbe facts in dispute, and to enable tbe plaintiff to present every view of tbe evidence contended for by bim. It is true tbe issues arise upon tbe pleadings and not upon evidential facts, but where there are no written pleadings, as in this case, it is tbe duty of tbe court to so frame the issues after bearing tbe evidence as to develop tbe whole case, and to present to tbe jury tbe real issues of fact in dispute. His Honor did that in this case.

2. Tbe witness Marshall testified to tbe good character of tbe plaintiff, and also, on cross examination, to tbe good character of Robert Singleton, one of tbe defendants. Upon redirect examination, 'the plaintiff’s counsel asked tbe witness : “Have you not beard that tbe defendant, Robert Singleton, committed rape'upon a negro girl ?” Also “Have you not beard that Robert Singleton padded bis pay roll at tbe mill ?” These questions were excluded and tbe plaintiff excepted. We think tbe ruling of tbe court was fully sustained by tbe decisions of this court wherein tbe rule of practice is fully discussed. State v. Bullard, 100 N. C., 488; State v. Boswell, 13 N. C., 209; Barton v. Morphes, ibid, 520.

It is to be noted, however, that tbe plaintiff bad full benefit of tbe evidence upon cross-examination of Robert Singleton, who admitted that he bad been accused of padding bis pay roll at tbe mill, and bad been charged with and acquitted of tbe crime of rape.

*3633. Tbe plaintiff pxesented to tbe court a paper writing signed by tbe several jurors wbo tried tbe case, to tbe effect that they did not fully understand the issues and tbe legal effect of their findings, and moved to set aside the-verdict. Tbe court declined and tbe plaintiff excepted. It is familiar learning that jurors cannot be beard to impeach tbeir verdict. If that were allowed, law suits would seldom be determined.

The legal effect of tbeir findings is to put an end to this case. Tbe fact that tbe jury unnecessarily answered tbe third issue, is conclusive that they intended to find that tbe plaintiff did not perform the contract on bis part, for if tbe lumber tendered was worth only $5, it fell far short of the required quality, according to tbe plaintiff’s own version of tbe contract.

We think there was no error committed, and tbe judgment is

Affirmed.