{
  "id": 8619634,
  "name": "STATE v. J. T. JEFFREYS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jeffreys",
  "decision_date": "1926-09-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "189",
  "last_page": "190",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 189"
    }
  ],
  "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": "155 N. C., 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652729
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N. C., 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657168
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "30"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 N, C., 219",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658345
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "222"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/175/0219-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N. C., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278057
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/51/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N. C., 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8689550
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/79/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N. C., 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692087
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N. C., 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8681317
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "97"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/11/0095-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3754,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20720049701739368
    },
    "sha256": "c74a6cb1cfc14f9540c96372db5f803002ab331bb6989322babc8febd636160a",
    "simhash": "1:43363ecb2339b965",
    "word_count": 601
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. T. JEFFREYS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Adams, J.\nHearsay evidence is such as does not derive its value solely from the credit given to the witness himself, but rests in part on the veracity and competency of some other person. No rule is more firmly established than that which excludes evidence of this character; but to this, as to most other general rules, there are some exceptions. One of these exceptions relates to marriage. In Morgan v. Purnell, 11 N. C., 95, 97, it is said: \u201cCommon reputation in the family is admissible as evidence of a marriage in that family; and it is said that the declarations of an individual of that family are evidence of that common reputation.\u201d Two years afterwards it was held that this principle does not apply to.actions from criminal conversation (Weaver v. Cryer, 12 N. C., 337) and the latter ruling was followed in Jones v. Reddick, 79 N. C., 290. In Archer v. Haithcock, 51 N. C., 421, Pearson, G. J., said: \u201cIt is held to be a general rule that reputation, cohabitation, and the declarations and conduct of the parties are competent evidence of a marriage between them, except in two cases, i. e., on an indictment for bigamy and in an action of Trim, con.\u2019 \u201d Bigamy is made an \u201cexception to the exception\u201d also in Turner v. Battle, 175 N, C., 219, 222. Whether the indictment be treated as a charge of bigamy, bigamous cohabitation, or criminal conversation, mere rumors or neighborhood reports are not admissible in evidence. Hopkins v. Hopkins, 132 N. C., 25, 30; S. v. Holly, 155 N. C., 485. The defendant\u2019s objection to the evidence should have been sustained and for this reason there must be a\nNew trial.-",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Adams, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brwnnnitt and, Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Parker & Man-tin for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. T. JEFFREYS.\n(Filed 22 September, 1926.)\nCriminal law \u2014 Bigamy\u2014Reputation \u2014 Evidence \u2014 Appeal and Error\u2014 Statutes.\nEvidence of rumors or neighborhood reports are not competent on indictments for bigamy, bigamous cohabitation, or criminal conversation.\nAppeal by defendant from Sinclair, J., at March Term, 1926, of tbe Superior Court of JohNSTON County upon a conviction of bigamous cohabitation under 0. S., 4342. New trial.\nIn order to prove tbe second marriage tbe State offered tbe following evidence: \u201cJ. Y. \"Woodard, was asked by tbe solicitor what tbe neighborhood report was as to tbe defendant being married to Mrs. Raeburn, to which tbe defendant objected. Objection overruled, and tbe defendant excepted. Witness testified that tbe neighborhood report was that,, they were married. Tbe defendant moved to strike out this evidence. Motion overruled, defendant excepted. Tbe solicitor then asked tbe witness as to tbe general report that tbe defendant and Mrs. Raeburn were living together. Defendant objects \u2014 objection overruled and defendant excepts. Witness testified that tbe general neighborhood report was that they were living together. Defendant moved to strike out this testimony; motion overruled and defendant excepts.\n\u201cThe State offered Mrs. Woodard, as witness: The solicitor asked her as to the neighborhood report about the defendant and Mrs. Rae-burn being married. Defendant objects; objection overruled and defendant excepts. Witness testified that the neighborhood report was that they were married. Defendant moves to strike out this evidence; motion overruled and \u2018defendant objects. The solicitor then asked the witness if the defendant and Mrs. Raeburn were living together. Answer : She did not know. The solicitor asked her as to the report, to which the defendant objected; objection overruled and defendant excepted. She answered that the report was that they were living together. The defendant moved to strike out this evidence; motion overruled and defendant excepted.\u201d\nAttorney-General Brwnnnitt and, Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nParker & Man-tin for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0189-01",
  "first_page_order": 263,
  "last_page_order": 264
}