Hamilton v. Henry
| Decision Date | 17 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 237,237 |
| Citation | 239 N.C. 664,80 S.E.2d 485 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HAMILTON, v. HENRY. |
Doffermyre & Stewart, Salmon & Hooper, Dunn, for defendant-appellant.
Wilson & Johnson, Dunn, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appellant brings up for consideration several assignments of error based upon exceptions (1) to denial of his motions aptly made, for judgment as of nonsuit, (2) to portions of the charge as given by the court to the jury, and (3) to argument of counsel. Careful consideration of them fails to show error for which judgment below should be disturbed.
(1) The evidence offered upon the trial in Superior Court, as shown in the case on appeal, is amply sufficient to take the case to the jury on the first issue, that is, as to the negligence of defendant, and to support the verdict of the jury in respect thereto.
And the evidence so offered, and so shown, fails to make out a case of contributory negligence against plaintiff as a matter of law. Indeed, taking the evidence in respect to conduct of plaintiff in the light most favorable to defendant, it may be fairly doubted that the evidence is sufficient to require the submission of the second issue, that is, as to contributory negligence of plaintiff.
But be that as it may, the jury has found upon the uncontroverted evidence offered, and fairly presented, that defendant was negligent, and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the personal injury and property damage of which complaint is made, and that plaintiff, by his own negligence, did not contribute thereto. This conclusion is so patent that discussion of applicable principle of law and citation of authority in support of it are deemed unnecessary.
(2)Assignments of error upon exceptions to portions of the charge as given by the trial judge to the jury are untenable. For taking the charge as a whole, that is, read contextually, prejudicial error is not indicated. The principles of law enunciated and applied are too familiar to require repetition of them.
(3)Lastly, assignments of error Numbers 4 and 11 are based on exceptions to the overruling of defendant's motion for withdrawal of juror, and for a new trial on account of statement of one of the attorneys for plaintiff in his argument to the jury, and to instructions in respect thereto in the course of the charge of the court.
The statement to which exception is directed is: 'It's not a matter for the jury to worry about where the money comes from; let us worry about that, but I say that any defendant who can hire four lawyers must have some money somewhere, and I'll leave it to you where it's coming from'.
Defendant objected, and made motion as above stated. Thereupon the court instructed the jury at some length to the effect that the remarks were of no concern to the jury, and should be dispelled from the minds of the jurors, concluding by saying: 'You will please erase it from your minds and forget it was ever said.'
And, again, the court, in the course of, and just before concluding the charge to the jury, gave these instructions: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
...prejudicial error. The conduct of a trial is left largely to the control and discretion of the presiding judge. Hamilton v. Henry, 239 N.C. 664, 80 S.E.2d 485 (1954). Numerous objections of counsel were sustained and numerous instructions given throughout the trial. We note that at the end ......
-
Watson v. White
...proper supervision over the argument of counsel, is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial judge. Hamilton v. Henry, 239 N.C. 664, 80 S.E.2d 485 (1954); Rupert v. Rupert, 15 N.C.App. 730, 190 S.E.2d 693, disc. rev. denied, 282 N.C. 153, 191 S.E.2d 759 (1972). We hold that it wa......
-
Wilson v. Camp, 171
...364, 96 S.E.2d 1; Marshburn v. Patterson, 241 N.C. 441, 85 S.E.2d 683; Harrison v. Kapp, 241 N.C. 408, 85 S.E.2d 337; Hamilton v. Henry, 239 N.C. 664, 80 S.E.2d 485; Finch v. Ward, 238 N.C. 290, 77 S.E.2d 661; Hawes v. Atlantic Refining Co., 236 N.C. 643, 74 S.E.2d 17; Matheny v. Central Mo......
-
Fidelity Bank v. Garner, 8020SC591
...300 N.C. 610, 620, 268 S.E.2d 173, 179 (1980). See Highway Commission v. Pearce, 261 N.C. 760, 136 S.E.2d 71 (1964); Hamilton v. Henry, 239 N.C. 664, 80 S.E.2d 485 (1954). Nothing in this record indicates that the jury would have considered the stricken statement in making their Ruling on a......