{
  "id": 8660154,
  "name": "R. T. DICKERSON v. E. E. DAIL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dickerson v. Dail",
  "decision_date": "1912-09-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "541",
  "last_page": "542",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 N.C. 541"
    }
  ],
  "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": "127 N. C., 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659378
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/127/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 N. C., 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272506
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/156/0643-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1918,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.90104693484442e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7302908393500934
    },
    "sha256": "cc0f4b31434a09ceeec68d60bb222176e35cf4deb938dfef6137a65a85c6518e",
    "simhash": "1:cb816f69e41196fe",
    "word_count": 336
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:45.962633+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. T. DICKERSON v. E. E. DAIL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Allen, J.\nTbe exceptions set out in tbe record relate to rulings upon tbe evidence, and all belong- to one of two classes.\nIn tbe first class the questions are set out, but there is no statement as to tbe answer of tbe witness when tbe question was admitted, nor as to tbe evidence sought to be elicited when it was excluded; and as we cannot see that tbe defendant has been prejudiced, tbe exceptions cannot be sustained. S. v. Leak, 156 N. C., 643.\nIf, however, tbe evidence was of the character indicated on tbe argument, we are of opinion that there was no error in tbe rulings of tbe court.\nTbe other exceptions rel\u00e1te to tbe exclusion of evidence as to facts'in mitigation of damages, which are not alleged in tbe answer, and it is settled that such evidence is not admissible. Upchurch v. Robertson, 127 N. C., 127.\nWe find no error.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Allen, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. F. Evans for plaintiff.",
      "F. C. Harding and Harry Skirmer for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. T. DICKERSON v. E. E. DAIL.\n(Filed 18 September, 1912.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Evidence \u2014 Questions Ruled Out \u2014 Expected' Answers \u2014 Prejudice.\nIt must appear on appeal that the objecting party has been prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence; and when questions are ruled out there must be a statement of what the answers of the witnesses were expected to be, for the appellate court to pass upon whether reversible error had been committed.\n2. Damages \u2014 Facts in Mitigation \u2014 Evidence\u2014Pleadings.\nFor evidence to show facts in mitigation of damages to be competent, the facts must be alleged in the answer.\nAppjbal' by plaintiff from 0. H. Allen\u25a0, J., at January Civil Term, 1912, of Pitt.\nThis is an action to recover damages for slander, tbe plaintiff alleging that tbe defendant bad charged that be bad stolen certain hoes.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for tbe plaintiff, and tbe defendant appealed.\nTbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Justice Allen.\nW. F. Evans for plaintiff.\nF. C. Harding and Harry Skirmer for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0541-01",
  "first_page_order": 591,
  "last_page_order": 592
}