{
  "id": 11272661,
  "name": "VENUS A. BARRINGER v. JOHN T. BARRINGER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barringer v. Barringer",
  "decision_date": "1910-11-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "392",
  "last_page": "393",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. 392"
    }
  ],
  "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": 177,
    "char_count": 2436,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.212262085584386e-08,
      "percentile": 0.26818629194211707
    },
    "sha256": "79eb0de7f0008e42c6c17688bfe2233e6dc25268084ff6ce3512d843e6f2925e",
    "simhash": "1:1289fa1927935430",
    "word_count": 393
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:54.157289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VENUS A. BARRINGER v. JOHN T. BARRINGER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CubiaM.\nThe evidence set out in the record discloses most barbarous and inhuman treatment upon the part of the defendant husband. It includes evidence of murderous assaults, continued brutal conduct and long continued habitual drunkenness, fully warranting the findings of the jury.\nThe issue tendered by defendant, \u201cIs the defendant an habitual drunkard?\u201d is immaterial, as the finding upon the third issue is amply sufficient to uphold the judgment.\n\"We think, however, his Honor submitted the fourth issue in proper form, except as to the last part, \u201cwithout provocation on plaintiff\u2019s part,\u201d and that addition did not prejudice defendant. We are not aware that the wife\u2019s provocation ever justifies or excuses the husband in becoming an habitual drunkard.\nWe have examined the six assignments of error and find them to be without merit. No error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CubiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. H. Price, P. S. Carlton and B. L. Wright for plaintiff.",
      "Hatcher & Smoot, Jerome, Maness & Sihes for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VENUS A. BARRINGER v. JOHN T. BARRINGER.\n(Filed 10 November, 1910.)\n1. Divorce \u2014 Issues\u2014Brutal Conduct \u2014 Evidence Sufficient.\nIn tbis action for divorce a mensa there was such evidence upon the issue of the barbarous treatment of the husband, of his murderous assaults on the feme plaintiff, and of his brutal conduct and habitual drunkenness, as to fully warrant the jury\u2019s affirmative finding of that issue.\n2. Divorce \u2014 Issues\u2014Drunkenness\u2014Provocation\u2014Harmless Error.\nIn this case an issue was submitted to the jury upon the question of whether the defendant\u2019s habitual drunkenness was \u201cwithout provocation\u201d on the part of the wife, the plaintiff, and though erroneous as to defendant\u2019s justification, was not prejudicial to him, and harmless in this case.\nAjppeal from Biggs, J., at the May Term, 1910, of Kowah.\nCivil action for divorce a mensa.\nThese issues were submitted and answered by the jury:\n1. Were plaintiff and defendant married to each other as alleged? Answer: Yes.\n2. Has the plaintiff been a resident of this State for two years prior to the commencement of this action, and the filing of the complaint ? Answer: Yes.\n3. Did the defendant by cruel and barbarous treatment endanger the life of the plaintiff, without provocation on her part as alleged? Answer: Yes.\n4. Had the defendant become an habitual drunkard, as alleged in the complaint, without provocation on plaintiffs part? Answer: Yes.\nFrom the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nA. H. Price, P. S. Carlton and B. L. Wright for plaintiff.\nHatcher & Smoot, Jerome, Maness & Sihes for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0392-01",
  "first_page_order": 440,
  "last_page_order": 441
}