{
  "id": 11276987,
  "name": "William & P. M. Slocum, v. Newby and Pleas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Slocum v. Newby",
  "decision_date": "1810-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "423",
  "last_page": "423",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Mur. 423"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 N.C. 423"
    }
  ],
  "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": 94,
    "char_count": 1041,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.417,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3467960421289866e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7927996960440551
    },
    "sha256": "e8f7ad8a3a0cd640055fcb948e833761ae834364453d579f73f70f0336f6cd41",
    "simhash": "1:7e62333e70e4b7fb",
    "word_count": 183
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:58.494236+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William & P. M. Slocum, v. Newby and Pleas."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "By the Court\nThe objection to the witness goes to his credibility, and not to his competency. The rule .discharged.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "By the Court"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William & P. M. Slocum, v. Newby and Pleas.\n\u201c1 I From Perquimons. J\nl.t is no objection to tlve competency of a witness, that he is counsel for the Plaintiff, and intends, if the debt sued for be recovered, to charge a commission for receiving and remitting the money.\nThis was \u00e1 question as to the admissibility of a-witness. The Plaintiffs claimed a debt in this, case, and their counsel offered himself as a witness. He was examined on his voire dire, and declared that he was not otherwise interested than as counsel, that there was no -special agreement between thG Plaintiffs and himself: but if tiie debt were recovered, he should charge a commission for receiving and remitting the money. He was admitted as a witness, and a verdict being given for the Plaintiffs, a, rule for a new trial Was obtained- by the Defendants, on the ground that improper testimony had been received. The rule was sent to this Court $ and"
  },
  "file_name": "0423-01",
  "first_page_order": 403,
  "last_page_order": 403
}