Martin v. . Cress

188 S.E. 316, 210 N.C. 776, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 222
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 25, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 S.E. 316 (Martin v. . Cress) 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
Martin v. . Cress, 188 S.E. 316, 210 N.C. 776, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 222 (N.C. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On bis appeal to this Court, the plaintiff contends that there was error in the trial of this action in the exclusion by the trial court of testimony by the plaintiff as to conversations between him and bis wife, with respect to conversations between her and the defendant, tending to show her relations with him. In support of this contention, the plaintiff cites and relies upon Cottle v. Johnson, 179 N. C., 426, 102 S. E., 769. In that case it was held that testimony by the plaintiff as to conversations between him and bis wife were competent as evidence tending to show their relations to each other, both before and after their separation. In the instant case the testimony of the plaintiff was properly excluded as hearsay. The court was mindful of the caution contained in the opinion in the cited case. The distinction between the instant case and the cited case is obvious.

The contention of the plaintiff cannot be sustained. There was no error in the trial. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.

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

Related

State v. Black
53 S.E.2d 443 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 S.E. 316, 210 N.C. 776, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-cress-nc-1936.