Chrisco v. . Yow
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendant from Biggs, J., at the March Term, 1910, of EaNDOlph. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtClark, C. J.
There are three exceptions in this case, all as to matters of evidence. As to the first exception, the evidence was properly admitted on redirect examination to explain the answer of witness as to matters on cross-examination, which tended to impeach her. As to the second exception the question asked was competent in corroboration, if for no other purpose. Ra tliff v. Ratliff, 131 N. C., 431; Burnett v. R. R., 120 N. C., 517. If the defendants wished the testimony restricted to that purpose it was their duty to ask the judge to do so, rule 27, 140 N. C., 662. This they failed to do, but the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. . DegraffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Carson v. . DellingerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- State v. . StarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Burnett v. Wilmington, Newbern & Norfolk Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- Ratliff v. Ratliff.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. . CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- State v. . LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Dowdy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1931
- State v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- State v. DodgeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1925
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.