Jones v. Jones

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Jones v. Jones

85 S.E.2d 156, 241 N.C. 291, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 409

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 15, 1954

Docket672

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 85 S.E.2d 156 (Jones v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Jones, 85 S.E.2d 156, 241 N.C. 291, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 409 (N.C. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Higgins, J.

The question in dispute in tbe case below was whether the defendant bad obtained a divorce from her former husband. She was permitted to testify that she paid a lawyer in Boanoke, Yirginia, tbe sum of $150.00, gave a deposition, and that later she obtained a paper with a seal on it which she left at Eoanoke, Yirginia, twenty or twenty-five years ago and bad not seen since. Tbe court, over objection, permitted her to testify as to her recollection of the contents of tbe document. She said: “Tbe best I recall, it was Ada Bennington Jones vs. or something like that, Benton F. J ones ... I don’t remember what it was exactly, except something about me being divorced by tbe State of Yirginia.” Tbe court evidently admitted this testimony over objection on tbe theory that tbe defendant bad laid tbe foundation for tbe introduction of parol testimony to prove tbe contents of a lost document. However, bis Honor overlooked tbe fact that tbe paper could be nothing more than a copy of an original record of tbe Circuit Court of Yirginia. Tbe contents of a court record cannot be proved by parol upon tbe mere showing that some copy of it has been lost or destroyed.

In order to admit secondary evidence of tbe contents of a court record, it is necessary that tbe foundation be laid by showing tbe original record has been destroyed, or lost. “Tbe record itself in tbe former action, being in existence, is tbe only evidence admissible to prove its contents.” Gibson v. Gordon, 213 N.C. 666, 197 S.E. 135; Gauldin v. Madison, 179 N.C. 461, 102 S.E. 851; Little v. Bost, 208 N.C. 762, 182 S.E. 448.

“Tbe proceedings of courts of record can be proved by their records only; that is by reason of the vagueness and uncertainty of parol proof as to such matters, and of tbe facility which tbe record affords of proving them with certainty. Public policy and convenience require the rule, and a necessary consequence from it is tbe absolute and undeniable presumption that the record speaks tbe truth.” S. v. Norris, 206 N.C. 191, 173 S.E. 14.

*294 It is unnecessary to examine other questions raised by the appeal.

New trial.

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

Higgins, J.

The question in dispute in tbe case below was whether the defendant bad obtained a divorce from her former husband. She was permitted to testify that she paid a lawyer in Boanoke, Yirginia, tbe sum of $150.00, gave a deposition, and that later she obtained a paper with a seal on it which she left at Eoanoke, Yirginia, twenty or twenty-five years ago and bad not seen since. Tbe court, over objection, permitted her to testify as to her recollection of the contents of tbe document. She said: “Tbe best I recall, it was Ada Bennington Jones vs. or something like that, Benton F. J ones ... I don’t remember what it was exactly, except something about me being divorced by tbe State of Yirginia.” Tbe court evidently admitted this testimony over objection on tbe theory that tbe defendant bad laid tbe foundation for tbe introduction of parol testimony to prove tbe contents of a lost document. However, bis Honor overlooked tbe fact that tbe paper could be nothing more than a copy of an original record of tbe Circuit Court of Yirginia. Tbe contents of a court record cannot be proved by parol upon tbe mere showing that some copy of it has been lost or destroyed.

In order to admit secondary evidence of tbe contents of a court record, it is necessary that tbe foundation be laid by showing tbe original record has been destroyed, or lost. “Tbe record itself in tbe former action, being in existence, is tbe only evidence admissible to prove its contents.” Gibson v. Gordon, 213 N.C. 666, 197 S.E. 135; Gauldin v. Madison, 179 N.C. 461, 102 S.E. 851; Little v. Bost, 208 N.C. 762, 182 S.E. 448.

“Tbe proceedings of courts of record can be proved by their records only; that is by reason of the vagueness and uncertainty of parol proof as to such matters, and of tbe facility which tbe record affords of proving them with certainty. Public policy and convenience require the rule, and a necessary consequence from it is tbe absolute and undeniable presumption that the record speaks tbe truth.” S. v. Norris, 206 N.C. 191, 173 S.E. 14.

*294 It is unnecessary to examine other questions raised by the appeal.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E.2d 156, 241 N.C. 291, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-jones-nc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack