{
  "id": 8570960,
  "name": "JUNIOR HALL, INC., t/a SEATON HALL v. CHARM FASHION CENTER, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Junior Hall, Inc. v. Charm Fashion Center, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1965-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "81",
  "last_page": "82",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 N.C. 81"
    }
  ],
  "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": 207,
    "char_count": 2802,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "sha256": "7b137a53c320ec6b4127340d4774c7cddec03622eaca052d9badc53c1d896777",
    "simhash": "1:1aa384646842eeab",
    "word_count": 466
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:18:06.877661+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JUNIOR HALL, INC., t/a SEATON HALL v. CHARM FASHION CENTER, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence, oral and record, was sufficient to go to the jury and to support the verdict. The defendant\u2019s sole assignments of error discussed in the brief relate to the questions propounded by counsel to a defendant\u2019s witness designed to show bias. The witness testified that she was in defendant\u2019s store at the time a large shipment from Seaton Hall was delivered. \u201cThe workmanship was so poor I did not want any of it ... I told her (Mrs. Davis, President of the defendant) I would not hang it in my store even as seconds or thirds ... In my opinion the merchandise I saw was not marketable.\u201d\nOn cross-examination, she testified she had known Mrs. Davis \u201cquite a few years. Both of us were raised up near Boone.\u201d On cross-examination, the witness testified, over objection, that she had appeared as a witness at the request of Mrs. Davis in another suit involving the return of merchandise from another shipper. The court instructed the jury: \u201cThis is admitted ... for the purpose of showing bias ... if in fact it does tend to do so ... a matter for the jury to determine.\u201d\nThe testimony of the witness, in view of her relationship to the president of the defendant, was such as to be admissible on the question of bias. The court limited the testimony to that purpose. In the trial, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harkey, Faggart, Coira & Fletcher by Francis M. Fletcher, Jr., for plaintiff appellee. . \u25a0-",
      "Winfred R. Ervin for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JUNIOR HALL, INC., t/a SEATON HALL v. CHARM FASHION CENTER, INC.\n(Filed 17 March, 1965.)\nEvidence \u00a7 58\u2014\nWhere defendant\u2019s witness testifies that the merchandise in question was defective and not marketable, it is competent for the seller\u2019s attorney to elicit on cross-examination that the witness had appeared as a witness in another like suit and that the witness had known the purchaser over a number of years and was raised in the same town, and the court correctly instructs the jury that such testimony was admitted for the purpose of showing bias, if it did so show.\nAppeal by defendant from Huskins, J., November 9, 1964 \u201cA\u201d Civil Session, MeceleNburg Superior Court.\nCivil action by plaintiff, a Massachusetts corporation, to recover $1,614.25 from the defendant, a North Carolina corporation, allegedly due by account for articles of wearing apparel sold and delivered to the defendant.\nThe defendant answered, admitted the receipt of certain shipments of wearing apparel, but some of which on account of defective material and workmanship were unsalable and were returned to the plaintiff. The defendant denied there was any balance due on the account.\nBoth parties introduced evidence. The jury found the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $1,348.25. From a judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed.\nHarkey, Faggart, Coira & Fletcher by Francis M. Fletcher, Jr., for plaintiff appellee. . \u25a0-\nWinfred R. Ervin for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0081-01",
  "first_page_order": 117,
  "last_page_order": 118
}