Nichols v. . Bradshaw
143 S.E. 469
N.C.
1928
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The evidence presented an issue of fact. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that the defendant shot him intentionally. The defendant offered evidence tending to show that the shooting was accidental. The verdict of the jury therefore determines the merit of the controversy. The principles of law governing the cause of action are thoroughly settled. S. v. DeHerrodora, 192 N. C., 749, 136 S. E., 6; Holloway v. Moser, 193 N. C., 185, 136 S. E., 375.

One of the parties who was engaged with the plaintiff in operating the distillery, was a witness for the plaintiff. This witness testified that *764 he was indicted for blockading and was thereupon asked by counsel for the defendant whether or not he was convicted. Plaintiff objected to the testimony and the objection was sustained. This question was competent. S . v. Lawhorn, 88 N. C., 634; S. v. Jeffreys, 192 N. C., 318, 135 S. E., 32; S. v. Maslin, ante, 537. However, on redirect examination the same witness testified that he was convicted and used plaintiff Nichols as a witness upon his trial. It is clear therefore that the error in excluding the testimony with respect to conviction was immaterial. Upon the whole record we are of the .opinion that no reversible error appears in the case.

No error.