{
  "id": 3281986,
  "name": "Corkins v. Prichard and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Corkins v. Prichard",
  "decision_date": "1884-05-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "184",
  "last_page": "184",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.M. 184"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 1996,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "sha256": "97327c0f664183fae9854a03d1b2d2e9b80fdb6eb77e687091150bb9cc8d1ccf",
    "simhash": "1:b5ecf6c29626eda1",
    "word_count": 357
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:09:35.925237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We concur: Bell, J.; Bristol, J."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Corkins v. Prichard and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Axtell, C. J.\nThis action was brought by Corkins against Prichard, before a justice of the peace in San Miguel county, and, on appeal to the district court, Corkins had judgment.\nThe assignments of error are: (1) That there was no sufficient description of the property; (2) no possession was shown to have existed in plaintiff prior to bringing the suit; and (3) that no forcible entry was proven.\nAll these assignments of error are facts about which the record shows a substantial conflict in the evidence. In such a case this court will not disturb a verdict of a jury unless it is shown that some error in law occurred upon the trial. The fourth and only assignment of error in law is that the court refused to admit certain \u2022evidence. The evidence thus refused to be admitted by the court was an offer to prove that defendant Prichard desired to rent a piece \u2022of land \u201con the other side of the ridge of rock.\u201d This witness was ..asked: \u201cDo you know where the quarries are that Mr. Corkin has \u00a1been taking rock from?\u201d Answer. \u201cNo, sir.\u201d \u201cAre you acquainted with Hugh Prichard?\u201d \u201cI am.\u201d \u201cUnder what circumstances did \u2022you become acquainted with him?\u201d \u201cHe came to me to rent apiece \u2022of land out on the other side of the ridge of rocks, to get some rocks from the side of the land.\u201d We fail to see in what possible way the \u2022exclusion of the offer to prove that Prichard desired to rent or did rent land \u201cout on the other side of the ridge\u201d could affect the ease. The court did perfectly right in excluding this evidence. Judgment .affirmed.\nWe concur: Bell, J.; Bristol, J.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Axtell, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. F. Comvay, for appellee.",
      "G. W. Prichard and M. Salagar, for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Corkins v. Prichard and others.\nFiled May 3, 1884.\n.Appeal\u2014Conflicting Evidence\u2014Verdict.\nWhere there is a substantial conflict in evidence, the verdict of a jury will not be \u2022disturbed unless error in law occurred on the trial.\nAppeal from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, Corkins, in an action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer.\nT. F. Comvay, for appellee.\nG. W. Prichard and M. Salagar, for appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0184-01",
  "first_page_order": 192,
  "last_page_order": 192
}