{
  "id": 8633165,
  "name": "RUTH WATFORD HALL v. ALBERT HALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hall v. Hall",
  "decision_date": "1938-09-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "820",
  "last_page": "821",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 820"
    }
  ],
  "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": 169,
    "char_count": 1830,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.464,
    "sha256": "5038fabc90ae038025295e0a9c23f137da18248d45ed24f896deff9ae22389b1",
    "simhash": "1:ba2a6555747967cb",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RUTH WATFORD HALL v. ALBERT HALL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubiam.\nUpon the exceptions in this case, we do not find sufficient reason to disturb the result of the trial, and the judgment is, therefore,\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. B. Tyler and W. E. Boone for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "E. L. Travis, G. W. Jones, and J. Carlton Cherry for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RUTH WATFORD HALL v. ALBERT HALL.\n(Filed 28 September, 1938.)\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, Special Judge, at April Term, 1938, of HebteoRD.\nAffirmed.\nPlaintiff brought this action, under O. S., 1667, for her support and maintenance, alleging abandonment by her husband, the defendant.\nPlaintiff testified that defendant had treated her with great cruelty, frequently abusing and beating her until finally plaintiff was compelled to leave her husband\u2019s home because of fear for her own safety and to seek refuge elsewhere, and that defendant had not provided for her a reasonable subsistence.\nThe defendant testified, denying the charges made by the plaintiff in her complaint and in her testimony. Defendant testified that his wife drank much, that he had never assaulted or cursed or abused her, that he did not tell her to leave, and that she left voluntarily for a different cause without fault of his.\nDuring the trial, on cross-examination, the defendant was asked why he went to Newport News and attempted to obtain depositions derogatory to his wife\u2019s character. The defendant testified that he went over there and asked someone about her, and related what he had heard this man say. Defendant excepted to the action of the trial judge striking out the answer to the question.\nTbe defendant excepted for that his Honor did not sufficiently instruct the jury as to what would constitute abandonment by the defendant; and there is a further exception that the Judge\u2019s charge in full did not comply with the requirements of 0. S., 564.\nE. B. Tyler and W. E. Boone for plaintiff, appellee.\nE. L. Travis, G. W. Jones, and J. Carlton Cherry for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0820-01",
  "first_page_order": 888,
  "last_page_order": 889
}