Cathey v. Shoemaker

119 N.C. 424
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 15, 1896·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Clare, J. :

The answer of a witness to a collateral question, drawn out on cross-examination, is ordinarily conclusive ; but this is subject to the exception that when, as in this case, the impeaching or collateral question is as to a declaration of the witness and is asked to show the temper, bias or disposition of the witness; and he is given the time and place of the alleged declaration, the opposite party is not bound by the answer, but may contradict him by other evidence. 1 Greenleaf Ev., Sec. 460; State v. Patterson, 24 N. C., 346; Jones v. Jones, 80 N. C., 246.

When the judge fails or omits to recapitulate any portion of the evidence which a party deems material, he must call it to the judge’s attention at the conclusion of the charge, that he may have opportunity to correct the omission. It is too late to except to the omission for the first. [428] time after verdict. State v. Grady, 83 N. C., 643 ; State v. Reynolds, 87 N. C., 544.

The exception to the charge, in the particular specified, is also without merit.

No Error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cathey v. Shoemaker, 119 N.C. 424 (N.C. 1896).

119 N.C. 424 (Cathey v. Shoemaker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Gamble
93 S.E.2d 66 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
State v. Hart
80 S.E.2d 901 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
State v. . Spaulding
5 S.E.2d 715 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
State v. . Carden
183 S.E. 898 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
State v. . Jordan
177 S.E. 333 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)