{
  "id": 6754043,
  "name": "KELLY against GOODBREAD's Executors",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kelly v. Goodbread's Executors",
  "decision_date": "1816-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "28",
  "last_page": "30",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Taylor 28"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 N.C. 28"
    }
  ],
  "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": 249,
    "char_count": 4469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37942926402272875
    },
    "sha256": "9d9bc4d2a3b42181fdaf2138ea901635eda924f183b1d7e7e3d539cfd1b2ec6a",
    "simhash": "1:122237d092dc15e3",
    "word_count": 744
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:53:33.045765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "KELLY against GOODBREAD\u2019s Executors."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nAfter the testimony in a cause is closed, no further evidence can be received, but by permission o\u00ed the Court. This permission will always be granted, or withheld, according to the nature of the action, the conduct of the parties, and the necessity of receiving further evidence for the advancement of justice.\nThe admission or rejection of testimony in such cases, must depend on the sound discretion of the presiding Judge.\nWe are all of Opinion, that the additional evidence offered in this case on the part of the Plaintiff, was properly rejected; and that the motion for a New Trial fee overruled.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KELLY against GOODBREAD\u2019s Executors.\nAfter the tes-timeiiy in a cause is clo-serl, the in-troduct.on of nil ter Witnesses must be submitted to tbe sound dis-ced ton of the Court.\nTHIS was an Action on the Case, tried before Camerov, J. at Rutherford Superior Court, and founded on tbe Act of Assembly passed in 1796, to prevent the removal of debtors; brought against tbe Defendant\u2019s testator in his lifetime,-\u2014for removing one R. Holford from Rutherford into Burke county,\u2014he being indebted to tbe Plaintiff. The Plaintiff called four witnesses. They were sworn; and, at the request of the Defendant\u2019s Counsel, were sent out of Court. The Plain\u00fa\u00edf\u2019s Counsel examined three of them to prove that Ihfcrd was indebted to him by a note and on a judgment before a Justice of the Peace ; and that the Defendaiu\u2019s testator had removed Holford from Rutherford into Burke. No evidence was offered, on the part of the Plaintiff, to prove that Holford had resided in Rutherford six months, or any other length of lime, before the removal--had taken place.\nThe Defendant\u2019s- Counsel asked the Plaintiff\u2019s Coun-.peVif they intended to offer any further evidence in the cause. They replied that they should not offer any further testimony; and proposed submitting the case without argument! This was declined by the Defendant\u2019s Counsel; and having informed them that no evidence could be offered on the part of the Defendant, requested that the Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel would open their cause to the Jury. The Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel refused to make any remarks to the Jury; and desired the Defendant\u2019s Coun-gel to proceed in submitting such observations as they thought proper to make to the Jury. The Defendant\u2019s Counsel then addressed the Jury; and, after making some remarks on the Plaintiff\u2019s evidence to prove the debt due by Hoford to the Plaintiff, and the removal of Halford by the Defendant\u2019s testator, observed to the Jury, that if both of these points should be in the Plaintiff\u2019s favour, he could not recover under the evidence submitted to them by the Plaintiff; because he had neither proved, or offered to prove, that Halford had resided in Rutherford county for six months, the time prescribed by the Act on which the action is brought, before his removal, by the Defendant\u2019s testator, from Rutherford into Burke.\nThe Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel, then interrupting the Defendant\u2019s Counsel, addressed the Court, and stated that they could prove .he fact ol Halford\u2019s residence for six months in Rutherford before the removal into Burke, either by the remaining witnesses not in Court, or by some other person who had not heard the trial ,* and prayed leave to offer such evidence. This was objected to by the Defendant\u2019s Counsel. The Court refused the introduction of any further testimony in the cause.\nThe Defendant\u2019s Counsel having finished his remarks, the Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel then, by permission of the Court, addressed the Jury; and argued that they might well be satisfied that Halford had resided six months in Rutherford previous to his removal, from the date of the note and judgment, and from some other' circumstances disclosed by the testimony. The Court stated to the Jury what a Plaintiff, suing on the Act in question, should prove, to entitle himself to recover; and left it to them \u20210 say whether the Plaintiff in this action had brought his case within the Act in question. They found a verdict for the Defendant. The Plaintiff's Counsel moved for a New Trial, on the ground that they bad a right to the benefit of the testimony which they wished to offer respecting liolforcPs residence before his removal; notwithstanding the time when, and the circumstances under which, they had offered it.\nThe Court overruled the motion for a New Trial; from which judgment, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.\nThe Case was submitted without argument."
  },
  "file_name": "0028-01",
  "first_page_order": 30,
  "last_page_order": 32
}