16 S.E. 1 | N.C. | 1892
The issues as submitted were sufficient, and there is no ground to support the exception for refusing to submit those tendered by the appellants. Humphrey v. Church,
The plaintiff rested his case upon the invalidity ab initio of the alleged marriage between Nash Booth and Anne Bowers (or Booth), one of the defendants, under the provisions of The Code, secs. 1084, 1284 *109
and 1810; Const., Art XIV, sec. 8. We see, therefore, no force (178) in the first exception, which was to the witness testifying that Anne Booth was a colored person and reputed to be such, S. v.Patrick,
The counsel, in his argument here, objected to the expressions "colored person" and "mixed blood," and cited S. v. Chavers,
When the defendants demurred to the evidence, the ruling of his Honor that thereby the defendants admitted the truth of the testimony, together with such inferences favorable to the plaintiffs as could be reasonably drawn therefrom, was unquestionably correct. Bond v. Wool,
The fourth exception is also without merit. There was much testimony tending to show that Anne Booth was a colored woman. It was certainly competent, therefore, to put in evidence, as a circumstance in corroboration, to be weighed by the jury, that she usually (179) associated with colored people. Juries are peculiarly fitted to give the proper weight to such evidence in accordance with the social customs prevailing around them and which are matters of common observation.
Nor is there any merit in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th exceptions, which have already been passed upon in the former appeal. Hopkins v.Bowers,
Neither is there any merit in the 10th exception, and for the reason given by the court below. The Code, sec. 1360; Kerchner v. Reiley,
The judgment upon the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was signed by the court, and contains no condition. The judge made a (180) verbal conditional order to the clerk in favor of appellants to set aside the judgment and verdict if a bond was filed in five days. This was conditional and of no effect. Strickland v. Cox,
NO ERROR.
Cited: Ward v. R. R.,