{
  "id": 11269453,
  "name": "G. E. HAWK v. THE PINE LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hawk v. Pine Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1908-11-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "16",
  "last_page": "17",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "149 N.C. 16"
    }
  ],
  "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": "139 N. C., 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652089
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/139/0057-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 1756,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23911316837390906
    },
    "sha256": "7d0a9dce190016be3db61e2fe39a04462ab3d6291094622f9947992483373c2d",
    "simhash": "1:841a1b56209aab63",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:43.519867+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. E. HAWK v. THE PINE LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Walker, J.\nThis is an appeal by the defendant, from 'the refusal of the Court to grant a new trial, because the Court refused to give the jury, as requested to do so by bis counsel, the following instruction: \u201cUpon the whole evidence,\" you will answer the eighth issue \u2018Yes.\u2019 \u201d The issues are set out in the plaintiff\u2019s appeal and reference is made thereto'. The request was not in proper form, as it deprived the jury of the right to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. Mfg. Co. v. R. R., 128 N. C., at pp. 284, 285, and cases cited; Merrell v. Dudley, 139 N. C., 57. The burden of the eighth issue was upon the defendant.\nEut we\u2019 will not decide the case upon the inaccurate and disapproved form of the prayer. If we did so, it would affirm the judgment in this appeal. In the plaintiffs 'appeal we have directed a now trial, as to all the issues, and this appeal^ therefore, becomes unnecessary, for the defendant will get what it is asking for by our giving a new trial in that appeal. Therefore, the proper course now is to dismiss this appeal;\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Walker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. I). Mclver, and D. L. Ward for plaintiff.",
      "W. W. Clark, Simmons, Ward \u00a3 Allen and Moore & Dunn for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. E. HAWK v. THE PINE LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 5 November, 1908).\nDefendant\u2019s Appeal.\n1. Instructions \u2014 Credibility of Witnesses \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nAn instr\u00faction which deprives the jury of the right to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses is properly refused.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Both Parties Appeal \u2014 New Trial.\nWhen a new trial has been granted by the Supreme Court in the appeal of one of the parties, litigant, the appeal in the same action by the other party will be dismissed.\nActioN tried before Neal, J., and a jury, November Term, 1907, of CRAVEN.\nW. I). Mclver, and D. L. Ward for plaintiff.\nW. W. Clark, Simmons, Ward \u00a3 Allen and Moore & Dunn for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0016-01",
  "first_page_order": 50,
  "last_page_order": 51
}