Riddle Et Ux v. Town Of Germantown

• Decision Date: 10 December 1895
• Citation: 117 N.C. 387,23 S.E. 332
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: RIDDLE et ux. v. TOWN OF GERMANTOWN.

23 S.E. 332

117 N.C. 387

RIDDLE et ux.

v.TOWN OF GERMANTOWN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 10, 1895.

Evidence—Maps—Presumption on Appeal.

Where, in an action against a town for possession of land claimed by defendant to have been dedicated for a street, defendant, after giving evidence to show the laying out, opening, acceptance, and use of the street, introduced a map of the town showing the street, it will be presumed, in the absence of anything showing its purpose, that it was introduced in explanation of the preceding evidence, for which purpose it is competent, and not for locating the land, that being specifically done by the complaint.

Appeal from superior court, Stokes county; Brown, Judge.

Action by H. H. Riddle and wife against the town of Germantown. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

J. T. Morehead and A. M. Stack, for appellants.

Jones & Patterson, for appellee.

FAIRCLOTH, C. J. The plaintiff brought this action for possession of a lot of land, 20 by 314 feet, in the defendant town, which was covered by a street, with the usual allegations of title, and wrongful holding by the defendant. These allegations were denied, and the defendant further averred that the locus had been dedicated to the town as a street in 1885 by the plaintiff's grantor, who conveyed to plaintiff in 1888, the street thenbeing laid out and in use by the town and the public. The issue, submitted without objection, was whether the lot in controversy had been dedicated to the use of the town as a public street, to which the jury responded "Yes." The evidence as to the dedication was conflicting. The defendant introduced evidence showing that the street was laid out, opened, and accepted by the defendant, and had been in use since 1885, and that plaintiff's grantor declined to accept any damages when the street was laid out. The defendant offered in evidence a town map showing the new street and another street. Plaintiff objected to the introduction of the map in evidence, which objection was overruled, and plaintiff excepted. Neither the record nor the case shows for what purpose the map was introduced, nor on what ground the objection was placed. A survey for the owner's convenience is not admissible evidence for him, or those claiming under him. Jones v. Hug-gins, 1 Dev. 223. But it is competent to explain the testimony of the witness, and to enable the jury to understand it. So with diagrams and plats. Dobson v. Whisenhant, 101 N. C. 645, 8 S....