{
  "id": 8655163,
  "name": "THOMAS B. NEWTON v. CARRIE NEWTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newton v. Newton",
  "decision_date": "1921-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "54",
  "last_page": "56",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 N.C. 54"
    }
  ],
  "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": "168 N. C., 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N. C., 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649884
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/101/0119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N. C., 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8687279
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/76/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N. C., 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2086750
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/48/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 N. C., 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2104316
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/23/0016-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N. C., 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8681841
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/46/0150-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 289,
    "char_count": 4524,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0622609057245143e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7567049275845812
    },
    "sha256": "277dcda8f888512d7b357f7efc415b95d0920e0daf581575acc9a9969a973583",
    "simhash": "1:023dc29342fb99e5",
    "word_count": 792
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:57:09.696199+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS B. NEWTON v. CARRIE NEWTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clare, C. J.\nA letter purporting to be from tbe defendant was offered as competent evidence against her, as tending to show tbe misconduct alleged. Its genuineness being denied, tbe judge admitted witnesses to compare tbe signature and bandwriting of tbe letter with tbe defendant\u2019s signature to tbe answer, wbicb sbe admitted to be genuine, but refused to permit tbe writings to be submitted to tbe jury for tbeir inspection.\nIn Outlaw v. Hurdle, 46 N. C., 150, tbe Court beld tbat while witnesses can testify to tbe genuineness of tbe bandwriting by comparison with other papers admitted or proved to be genuine, tbe jury must pass upon its genuineness upon tbe testimony of witnesses, bolding: \u201cWritings are not properly submitted to a jury\u2019s inspection. As a general rule all evidence is addressed to tbe bearing of tbe jury and not to tbeir sight.\u201d In Tunstall v. Cobb, 109 N. C., 321, tbe Court said: \u201cIn North Carolina it seems to be settled law tbat an expert in tbe presence of tbe jury may be allowed to compare tbe disputed paper with other papers in tbe case, whose genuineness is not denied, and also with such papers as tbe party whose bandwriting gives rise to tbe controversy is estopped to deny tbe genuineness of, or concedes to be genuine, but no comparison by tbe jury is permitted. Pope v. Askew, 23 N. C., 16; Outlaw v. Hurdle, 46 N. C., 150; Otey v. Hoyt, 48 N. C., 407; Yates v. Yates, 76 N. C., 142; Fuller v. Fox, 101 N. C., 119,\u201d and this has continued to be tbe settled law in this State. See cited cases to Tunstall v. Oobb, in the Anno. Ed.\nBut a recent statute, cb. 52, Laws 1913, now 0. S., 1784, has provided, \u201cIn all trials in this State, when it may be otherwise competent and relevant to compare handwritings, a comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to tbe satisfaction of tbe judge to be genuine, shall be permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings and evidence of witnesses respecting tbe same may be submitted to tbe court and- jury as evidence of tbe genuineness or otherwise of tbe writing in dispute, provided this shall not apply to actions pending on 5 March, 1913.\u201d Tbe last line is an unequivocal declaration of change in tbe rule obtaining theretofore.\nAs we understand tbe statute, tbe admission of testimony as to tbe genuineness of a writing by comparison of bandwriting is now on tbe same basis as tbe declarations of agents. Tbe Court determines whether there is prima facie evidence of agency or of tbe genuineness of writing admitted as a basis of comparison, and then tbe testimony of tbe witnesses and \u201ctbe writings\u201d (in tbe plural) themselves are submitted to tbe jury. It is fair to tbe presiding judge to say tbat this statute was not called to bis attention. It was adverted to by Walker, J., in Bank v. McArthur, 168 N. C., 55, though tbe disputed writing in tbat case did not come within tbe statute.\nThough it was error to exclude tbe writings from tbe jury if tbe testimony was competent and pertinent, it was not reversible error in this instance, for we are of opinion tbat tbe letter, if genuine was irrelevant, not tending to prove any fact or circumstance in issue, and tbe refusal to submit tbe writing to tbe jury to determine its genuineness was harmless error.\nUpon tbe whole case we can find no error of which tbe plaintiff can complain.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clare, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. M. T. Fountain & Son, and, Don Gilliam for plaintiff.",
      "Allsbrook & Philips for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS B. NEWTON v. CARRIE NEWTON.\n(Filed 21 September, 1921.)\n1. Evidence \u2014 Writing\u2014Genuineness\u2014Jury\u2014Statutes.\nTbe principle, formerly recognized in tbis State, tbat confined tbe proof of bandwriting to tbe testimony of a competent witness in comparing tbat sought to be established with bandwriting either admitted or proven as tbat of tbe party, has been changed by statute, C. S., 1784, and where tbe disputed writing has been rendered competent under tbis principle, it may now be submitted to tbe jury, together with that admitted or proven since 5 March, 1913.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Irrelevant Evidence \u2014 Harmless Error.\nIn this case the handwriting sought to be introduced as evidence before the jury and to be considered by them was irrelevant, and the action of the court in refusing to let the writing be submitted to the jury, to determine its genuiness, under the statute, was harmless error. C. S., 1784.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Oalvert, J., at April Term, 1921, of Edge-combe.\nTbis is an action for divorce. Yerdict and judgment for defendant. Appeal by plaintiff.\nG. M. T. Fountain & Son, and, Don Gilliam for plaintiff.\nAllsbrook & Philips for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0054-01",
  "first_page_order": 124,
  "last_page_order": 126
}