Woodie v. Town of North Wilkesboro
| Decision Date | 15 May 1912 |
| Parties | WOODIE v. TOWN OF NORTH WlLKESBORO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wilkes County; Foushee, Judge.
Action by John L. Woodie against the Town of North Wilkesboro. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
In a civil case, where plaintiff's witness had testified as to his good character, a question to the witness, as to whether he thought that a man, who would go to a distillery and try to run another away with a gun and would attend a lynching bee, was a man of good character, was incompetent.
The following issues were submitted to the jury:
(1) Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
(2) Did the plaintiff by his own negligence contribute to his injury as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.
(3) What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: $800.
From the verdict and judgment rendered, the defendant appealed.
Frank D. Hackett, for appellant.
W. W Barber, C. B, Spicer, and T. C. Bowie, for appellee.
This action is brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant in the operation of its waterworks. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a municipal corporation, was duly authorized to construct and maintain a system of waterworks and lease, sell, and dispose of water and water privileges to the citizens of the town for compensation. It appears in the evidence that the standpipe of the said waterworks is situated some distance from the pumping station, and the alleged negligence consists in not having a proper water gauge at the pumping station to indicate to the pumper when the standpipe was full of water so as to prevent dangerous overflow. On the -- day of October, 1910, plaintiff was driving his horses and wagon by the pumping station, and alleges that the overflow of the standpipe was so great that it frightened his horses, caused them to run away, threw him out, as well as his daughter, who was with him, damaged the wagon, and greatly injured the plaintiff.
Several assignments of error relate to testimony offered tending to prove the condition of the wagon after the accident, the repairs that were put on it, the injury to the habits of the horses, caused by the runaway, and as to the worth of the horses before the accident and immediately afterwards. We think it unnecessary to discuss these assignments of error as in our opinion the testimony was plainly competent.
The plaintiff's witness David Hart, after testifying to facts material to the case, stated that he had known the plaintiff for 30 years, and that his general character was good. The defendant then asked him the following question: "Do you think a man that will go to a distillery and try to run another man away with gun and sticks and other weapons, and attend a lynching bee, and help lynch a man, is a man of good character?" This question was plainly incompetent, as it sought to inject into the...
To continue reading
Request your trial