{
  "id": 1955242,
  "name": "BRYANT D. AUSTIN v. MANOAH HELMS, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Austin v. Helms",
  "decision_date": "1871-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "560",
  "last_page": "562",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 N.C. 560"
    }
  ],
  "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": 269,
    "char_count": 4408,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.388,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.236849153798705e-08,
      "percentile": 0.510845999129679
    },
    "sha256": "d5646b6e497e315fb82b2209684731f214f2198ff29a5108a7a861f39e9c2875",
    "simhash": "1:da43b8c12b4927f1",
    "word_count": 734
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:56.423501+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BRYANT D. AUSTIN v. MANOAH HELMS, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Dick, J.\nWe have considered \u00a1the various exceptions filed by the defendants, and concur in the opinion of his Honor.\nThe 6th exception was the only one insisted upon hy the counsel in this Court. Under the Act of 1868 \u2014 \u201969, a person injured by the erection of a public mill, is entitled to have his damages assessed by three Commissioners, appointed in the manner prescribed in said Act.\nThere is no provision in the Act requiring all the Commissioners to concur in the report; and the action of a majority is sufficient, as in other cases, where three or more public officers, or other persons are entrusted with the exercise of joint authority. Rev. Code, chap. 102, sec. 2.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dick, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. H. Wilson, for plaintiff.",
      "Ashe, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BRYANT D. AUSTIN v. MANOAH HELMS, et al.\nIt is not necessary that all the Commissioners appointed under the Act of April, 1869, chap. 158, entitled \u201c AnAct relating to special procedure in cases of mills,\u201d should sign the report required to be made, a majority being sufficient.\nSpecial proceedings to recover damages for the ponding back water on the plaintiff\u2019s lands, so as to obstruct the mill wheels of the plaintiffj on an appeal from the Superior Court of Union County, tried before BiKctpn, J., at Spring Term, 1871, of Union Superior Court.\nAfter the coming in of the answer of the defendants, the Clerk of the Superior Court appointed one commissioner, and the plaintiff' and defendants respectively appointed each a commissioner, to assess the damage, if any, in accordance with the provisions of chap. 158, Acts of 1868-69.\nThe Commissioners after due notice to the parties, met upon the premises and heard evidence from both plaintiff and defen\u25a0dants, and made their report to the Cleric of the Superior Court. The defendants excepted to said report:\n1st. In that the witnesses examined in the case before the Commissioners, were sworn by W. H. Simpson, Esq., one of the plaintiffs attorneys.\n2d. In that the evidence adduced in the case was not reduced to writing.\n3d. Because the report does not show that the Commission\u25a0ers were sworn.\n4th. Because the report does not show that the witnesses were sworn.\n6th. Because one of the Commissioners, II. M. Houston, has not concurred in the report, and has refused to sign the same.\n7th. Because the Commissioners refused to admit evidence \u25a0\u2022offered by the defendants, to contradict the material evidence of one William A. Gaddy, a witness, examined by the plaintiff.\n8th. In that the Commissioners declined to examine the parties to the proceeding.\nThe Clerk overruled all the exceptions of the defendants, .and approved the report of the Commissioners, from which the \u00abdefendants appealed to the Superior Court, where his Honor, after argument, decided as follows:\nIt is considered that Exception 1 be overruled, (1.) Because as the law stood at the time of said examination, an Attorney \u00abat Law might hold a magistrate\u2019s commission. (2.) The Attormey referred to, took noipart in the examination of the witnes\u25a0ses, nor in the trial before the Commissioners, but merely swore \u25a0the witnesses in their presence, and at their request.\n2d Exception overruled. Because it was not necessary that the evidence should be reduced to writing, nor is there any law requiring it.\n3d Exception overruled. Because the proof is, and the \u25a0Court so finds, that the Commissioners were all sworn, and the AJourt under the authority of law, relating to special proeeedings, cbap. 93, sec. 7, Acts of 1868 \u2014 \u201969, directs the report of the Commissioners to be amended by supplying omissions.\n4th Exception overruled. For reason assigned in overruling Exception 3.\n5th Exception withdrawn.\n6th Exception overruled. Because the Court considers 'the report o\u00ed the majority of the Commissioners, as the report of the Commissioners. Rev. Code, chap. 108, sec. 2.\n. 7th Exception overruled. Because the proof is, and the Court so finds, that the evidence offered to contradict the statement of one Vm. A. Gaddy, was offered, before Gaddy -was offered as a witness, and was not\" renewed after Gaddy was examined.\n8th Exception overruled. Because the proof is, and the Court so finds, that neither of the parties proposed either to examine each other, or to be examined.\nIt is further considered by the Court, that the reports o\u00ed the Commissioners awarding, &c., be affirmed, &c. From which the defendants appealed.\nJ. H. Wilson, for plaintiff.\nAshe, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0560-01",
  "first_page_order": 570,
  "last_page_order": 572
}