{
  "id": 8648962,
  "name": "B. W. JONES and wife v. JORDAN H. PARKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Parker",
  "decision_date": "1887-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "33",
  "last_page": "34",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "97 N.C. 33"
    }
  ],
  "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": "78 N. C., 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Hawks, 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11276267
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/8/0346-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Hawks, 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11276267
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/8/0346-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2147,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7124265094980191e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7025896104367475
    },
    "sha256": "3294afe380ceaf0a08c468373afd90fa12130b95a792116388a47511ef3f4571",
    "simhash": "1:a466905f5feb5bf8",
    "word_count": 378
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:12.215141+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. W. JONES and wife v. JORDAN H. PARKER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Davis, J.\n-There is no error assigned in the record, but a motion was made for a new trial, based upon affidavits filed by some of the jurors, that they did not concur in the verdict, and by others that they did not understand portions of the charge of the Court.\nCounter-affidavits by other members of the jury were also' filed. The case states, that \u201c the Court, considering the affidavits fully, and acting upon personal knowledge of what transpired in Court, in the exercise of its discretion, refused the motion.\u201d\nThe granting of a new trial, when a matter of discretion, as in this case, is purely a subject for the consideration of the presiding Judge, and this Court has no power to review or control the exercise of his discretion. This is too well settled to need the citation of authority.\nHis Honor gave full consideration, to the affidavits of the jurors in regard to their verdict. In State v. McLeod, 1 Hawks, 346, Henderson, Judge, said: \u201cIt has been long .settled, and very properly, that evidence impeaching their verdict, must not come from the jury; but must be shown by other testimonyand this has been affirmed in State v. Smallwood, 78 N. C., 563.\nWe call attention to these authorities, because we think it unsafe and unwise, as a rule, to permit verdicts to be impeached by the testimony of jurors rendering them.\nIn this case no error having been assigned in the record, and none appearing, the judgment must be affirmed. Let this be certified.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Davis, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. John Gatling, for the plaintiffs.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. W. JONES and wife v. JORDAN H. PARKER.\nNew Trial \u2014 Jwrors\u2014Impeaching Verdict.\n1. Where the motion for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial Judge, his action is not the subject of review on appeal.\n2. The testimony of a member of the jury cannot be heard to impeach the verdict.\n(,State v. McLeod, 1 Hawks, 346; Statev. Smallwood, 78 N. C., 563; cited and approved).\nCivil action, tried before Shipp, Judge, and a jury, at Fall Term, 1886, of Gates Superior Court.\nThere was a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed.\nThe facts appear in the opinion.\nMr. John Gatling, for the plaintiffs.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0033-01",
  "first_page_order": 57,
  "last_page_order": 58
}