{
  "id": 8649697,
  "name": "R. J. M. BARBER v. R. M. ROSEBORO",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barber v. Roseboro",
  "decision_date": "1887-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "192",
  "last_page": "193",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "97 N.C. 192"
    }
  ],
  "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": 135,
    "char_count": 1748,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4389028086193442
    },
    "sha256": "9a00aad36d8193804a8031ed0fcf9d36fc28863a153e0b55aa891cd3a9602f0e",
    "simhash": "1:0eec0305155fc72d",
    "word_count": 295
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:12.215141+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. J. M. BARBER v. R. M. ROSEBORO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MbrriMON, J.\nThe case settled upon appeal states, that \u201c the plaintiff except\u00e9d generally to the whole charge, and especially to the instruction given upon the third issue.\u201d\nError cannot thus be assigned as to the whole' charge\u2014 it must be specified with reasonable certainty, and designate the particular part or parts of the charge to which there is objection.\nWe think the instruction given the jury as to the third issue was correct. The inquiry was: \u201c Did the defendant wrongfully discharge the plaintiff?\u201d So far as appears, all the evidence bearing upon it tended to prove that the defendant did not discharge the plaintiff; but another person \u2014 a sub-contractor \u2014 did, the defendant objecting. The Court might, therefore, properly tell the jury, that \u201c on this testimony, you will be obliged to hold that defendant did not wrongfully discharge him.\u201d If there was no evidence tending to prove the affirmative of the issue, the Court might so instruct the jury, and tell them that they ought to render a verdict in the negative.\nThe judgment must therefore be affirmed.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MbrriMON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for the plaintiff.",
      "Mr. Theo. F. Klutz, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. J. M. BARBER v. R. M. ROSEBORO.\nJudge\u2019s Charge \u2014 Exception to.\n1. Where the assignment of error to the J udge\u2019s charge to the jury, was- \u201c that the appellant excepted to the whole charge and especially to the instruction on the third issue;\u201d It ivas held, that such assignment of error was improper.\n2. Where there is no evidence to prove the affirmative of an issue, it is-not error for the Judge to so charge the jury.\nCivil ACTION, tried before MacBae, Judge, at February Term, 1886, of RowaN Superior Court.\nThere was a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.\nNo counsel for the plaintiff.\nMr. Theo. F. Klutz, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0192-01",
  "first_page_order": 216,
  "last_page_order": 217
}