{
  "id": 8655406,
  "name": "C. H. DICKENS v. W. B. DREWRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dickens v. Drewry",
  "decision_date": "1925-03-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "832",
  "last_page": "832",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 N.C. 832"
    }
  ],
  "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": 137,
    "char_count": 1373,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "sha256": "4935a48120bf5db362b064a4ec848afbc999cff38d3fe123b96c613d9c97d421",
    "simhash": "1:b2980bd455eaa4b8",
    "word_count": 226
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:40:32.095485+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. H. DICKENS v. W. B. DREWRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nPlaintiff appeals from a judgment in bis favor, alleging errors on tbe issues relating to damages. He thinks tbe amounts awarded are too small. A careful perusal of tbe record leaves us witb tbe impression that tbe case bas been tried substantially in agreement with\u2019 tbe law bearing on tbe subject and tbat no reversible or prejudicial error was committed on tbe trial.\nNo benefit would be derived from a discussion, seriatim,, of tbe several exceptions and assignments of error, as they present no new or novel point of law not heretofore settled by our decisions.\nTbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George G. Green and Dunn & Johnson for plaintiff.",
      "Travis & Travis and R. H. Parker for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. H. DICKENS v. W. B. DREWRY.\n(Filed 11 March, 1925.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Lyon, J., at September Special Term, 1924, of Halifax.\nCivil action tried upon the following issues:\n\u201c1. Did the defendant speak of and concerning the plaintiff the words in substance alleged in the complaint ? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. If so, wbat damages is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover ? Answer: \u2018$500.00.\u2019\n\u201c3. Did tbe defendant assault tbe plaintiff, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c4. If so, wbat damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: \u2018$250.00.\u2019 \u201d\nJudgment on tbe verdict for plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nGeorge G. Green and Dunn & Johnson for plaintiff.\nTravis & Travis and R. H. Parker for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0832-01",
  "first_page_order": 910,
  "last_page_order": 910
}