{
  "id": 8690849,
  "name": "STATE TO THE USE OF UNDERWOOD, MARSH & CO. vs. JOAB PARKS AND OTHERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Underwood, Marsh & Co. v. Parks",
  "decision_date": "1843-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "296",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Ired. 296"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. 296"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Dev. & Bat. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. & Bat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Dev. 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276597
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0209-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 3754,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.3639806406197035e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8754386838769365
    },
    "sha256": "65f2889f9e883e9d918a221e4bbb54a535e82dadcb214929c440ca24cc23c129",
    "simhash": "1:eaa6f41cfc4425b2",
    "word_count": 658
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:56:07.564663+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE TO THE USE OF UNDERWOOD, MARSH & CO. vs. JOAB PARKS AND OTHERS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GastoN, J.\nIt is essential to the uniform administration of justice, which is one of the best securities for its faithful administration, that the rules of evidence should be steadily observed. Among these, the rule, which regulates the admission of testimony, offered to impeach the character of a witness, is now so well established and so clearly defined, that a departure from it must be regarded as a violation of law. The witness is not to be discredited, because of the opinions which any person or any number of persons may have expressed to his disadvantage, unless such opinions have created or indicate a general reputation of his want of moral principle. The impeaching witness must, therefore, profess to know the general reputation of the witness sought to be discredited, before he can be heard to speak of his own opinion or of the opinions of others, as to the reliance to be placed on the testimony of the impeached witness.\nState v Boswell, 2 Dev. 209. Downey v Smith, 1 Dev. & Bat. 62. This rule, we think, was not observed in the case before us, and the exception taken to the reception of Mr. Worth\u2019s testimony was therefore well founded. The judgment must be reversed and a new trial awarded.\nPer Curiam. New trial awarded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GastoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for the plaintiffs.",
      "J. T. Mordicad for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE TO THE USE OF UNDERWOOD, MARSH & CO. vs. JOAB PARKS AND OTHERS.\nJune 1843\nA witness, who is introduced for the purpose of discrediting another witness in the cause, must profess to know the general reputation of the witness sought to be discredited, before he can be heard to speak of his own opinion or of the opinions of others, as to the reliance to be placed on the testimony of the impeached witness. <\nThe cases of State v Boswell, 3 DeV. 309 ; and Downey v Smith, I Dev, & Bat. 63, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Randolph County, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.\nThe action was on a Constable\u2019s bond, to which the defendants pleaded \u201c conditions performed and not broken.\u201d \u2014 \u25a0 After the plaintiffs had made out a \u2022prima facie case, the defendants, in support of their plea, introduced as a witness, one Tidence Lane, who testified, that, some time before the action was commenced, he saw the principal defendant pay to one of the plaintiffs a sum of money larger than that now claimed by the plaintiffs. On the part of the plaintiffs, Jonathan Worth was then called to impeach the credibility of Lane, and stated, that he, Worth, had resided for many years in Ashboro\u2019, while Lane lived about twelve miles from that place \u2014 that he did not know Lane\u2019s general character in the immediate neighborhood where he lived, but that Lane had been for many years a public man in the county of Randolph, and he had often seen him in Ashboro\u2019 at Court, and on other public occasions, and had heard a great deal said about his character \u2014 that he was not certain that he knew his general character \u2014 that he did not know whether a majority of those he heard speak of it spoke well or ill of it, but he had beard a great many respectable men speak well of Lane\u2019s character, and a great many, equally respectable, speak ill ot it. The plaintiff\u2019s counsel then asked the witness, whether, from his knowledge joi Lane\u2019s general character, he would believe him on oath. This question was objected to by the defendant\u2019s counsel, but permitted by the Court; when the witness said he would not believe him, if his story was at all improbable. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial, because the Court permitted this last question to be asked. The Court overruled the motion and gave judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed.\nNo counsel for the plaintiffs.\nJ. T. Mordicad for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0296-01",
  "first_page_order": 296,
  "last_page_order": 297
}