{
  "id": 8615601,
  "name": "LEE WILLIAMS v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Rowland Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1930-11-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "774",
  "last_page": "775",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 774"
    }
  ],
  "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": 157,
    "char_count": 2021,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.443,
    "sha256": "1173ece7aeff9b5b91db38dd290672912971125bd8176234b169df8f4c82ea9b",
    "simhash": "1:8a9f36b87f488a3c",
    "word_count": 340
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LEE WILLIAMS v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere is no exception to evidence introduced at. the trial; neither is there any exception to the charge of the court. Indeed, the charge does not appear in the record, and therefore it is presumed that the trial judge charged correctly upon all the issues. There was sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury, and the verdict is determinative of the rights of the parties.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Oscar B. Turner for plaintiff.",
      "Beasley & Stevens for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEE WILLIAMS v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 26 November, 1930.)\nAppeal and Error E b \u2014 Where charge to jury does not appear in record it is presumed correct.\nWhere tbe charge of the court is not set out in the record on appeal its correctness is presumed, and where the evidence, not excepted to, is sufficient to sustain the verdict, which is determinative of the rights of the parties, the judgment will be affirmed.\nCivil action, before Midyette, J., at January Term, 1930, of Duplin.\nThe plaintiff alleged and offered evidence tending to show that he was employed by the defendant as a laborer in logging operations; that the logs were pulled out of the woods by a skidder; that he was instructed to unfasten the cable from the end of a log and that, while attempting to do so, the skidder was suddenly started without notice, causing the log to be jerked with such force as to swing it to one side, striking the plaintiff and producing serious and permanent injury.\nThe defendant denied the allegations of negligence, and alleged that, while it owned the skidder, the plaintiff was an employee of one James, an independent contractor for whose negligence, if any, the defendant was not liable. The defendant further pleaded contributory negligence.\nThe jury found that James, who employed the defendant, was not an independent contractor, and that plaintiff was injured by the negligence of defendant and did not by negligence contribute to his own injury, and assessed the damages at $500.\nFrom judgment upon the verdict, the defendant appealed.\nOscar B. Turner for plaintiff.\nBeasley & Stevens for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0774-01",
  "first_page_order": 842,
  "last_page_order": 843
}