Buie v. . Carver
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN, in the nature of Ejectment, tried at tbe Spring Term, 1875, of Cumbeslawd Superior Court, before bis Honor, Judge Buxton. The only point raised and decided in this Court, was a question of tbe admissibility of certain evidence. A statement of the facts and the evidence bearing on other points in the case, is, at this stage deemed unnecessary. During the trial, the plaintiff introduced Wm.
Read the full summary
Civil actioN, in the nature of Ejectment, tried at tbe Spring Term, 1875, of Cumbeslawd Superior Court, before bis Honor, Judge Buxton. The only point raised and decided in this Court, was a question of tbe admissibility of certain evidence. A statement of the facts and the evidence bearing on other points in the case, is, at this stage deemed unnecessary. During the trial, the plaintiff introduced Wm. B. Baker, to prove what one Daniel Cornbow had sworn to on a former trial. Baker, upon his preliminary examination to test his competency, stated : That he was present at the previous trial was…
1Opinion of the Court
PbaesoN, O. J.
It is a familiar rule of evidence that when any part of a document is read in evidence to the jury, the opposing party is entitled to have the whole of it read, whether it be a deed, answer in equity, will, letter or any other paper writing. It follows as a corollary to this rule, that when a part of a paper writing has been torn off jmd lost, or defaced so as to be illegible, the fragment preserved cannot be put in evidence to show the contents of the writing, although it may be competent evidence to prove the naked fact, that there had been a paper writing, setting out matter…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Paine v. . RobertsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- State v. . LawhornSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Whitmire v. . HeathSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Grant v. . MitchellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911