{
  "id": 8651523,
  "name": "SMITH v. RAILROAD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1906-09-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "21",
  "last_page": "22",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "142 N.C. 21"
    }
  ],
  "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": "77 N. C., 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683157
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/77/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 666",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1807,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.426,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20759839666328037
    },
    "sha256": "647af6155d128112d71cc38c4a2f98650082f9c6d907f43ece35164a4a98f681",
    "simhash": "1:8ab810c7440aaf8e",
    "word_count": 306
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:29.740348+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SMITH v. RAILROAD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClabK, C. J.\nThere are several exceptions in the record, but the only one stated in the appellant\u2019s brief is that which was taken to comments of counsel. The others are therefore \u201ctaken as abandoned.\u201d Rule 34, 140 N. C., 666.\nObjection to the comments of counsel is a matter peculiarly witbin the discretion of the trial Judge, and his action is not reviewable unless there is gross abuse of the discretion and it ajjpears reasonably probable that the appellant suffered prejudice thereby.\nIn the present case there was merely \u201ccross-firing with small shot,\u201d as was said by the Court in State v. Underwood, 77 N. C., 502. It is not probable that any real injury was done, and we cannot hold that the Judge erred in refusing to interpose. The jury may have been amused or entertained, or otherwise; but crediting them with being men of ordinary intelligence, their verdict was based on the evidence without any effect from this \u201cby-play.\u201d\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClabK, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. L. Travis, Olaude Kitchin and W. E. Daniel for the plaintiff.",
      "Day, Bell & Dunn and Murray Allen for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SMITH v. RAILROAD.\n(Filed September 11, 1906).\nExceptions and Objections \u2014 Briefs\u2014Argument of Counsel.\n1. Under Rule 34 of this Court, exceptions appearing in the record, but not stated in the appellant\u2019s brief, are \u201ctaken as abandoned.\u201d\n2. Objection to the comments of counsel is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the trial Judge, and his action is not reviewable unless there is gross abuse of the discretion and it appears reasonably probable that the appellant suffered prejudice thereby.\nAotioN by W. E. Smith, trustee, against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, heard by Judge B. F. Long and a jury, at the November Term, 1905, of the Superior Court of Halifax. Erom a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nE. L. Travis, Olaude Kitchin and W. E. Daniel for the plaintiff.\nDay, Bell & Dunn and Murray Allen for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0021-01",
  "first_page_order": 51,
  "last_page_order": 52
}