32:T4b4,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Martin v. . Cress, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 222","datePublished":"1936-11-25","legislationDate":"1936-11-25","citation":"Martin v. . Cress, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 222 (N.C. 1936)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Supreme Court of North Carolina","description":"Read the full text of Martin v. . Cress (Martin v. . Cress, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 222 (N.C. 1936)). This legal opinion, filed in 1936-11-25, from the Supreme Court of North Carolina discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/martin-v-cress--3648813"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/martin-v-cress--3648813","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Martin v. . Cress, Supreme Court of North Carolina, Martin v. . Cress, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 222 (N.C. 1936)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T4c3, Per Curiam.

On bis appeal to this Court, the plaintiff contends that there was error in the trial of this action in the exclusion by the trial court of testimony by the plaintiff as to conversations between him and bis wife, with respect to conversations between her and the defendant, tending to show her relations with him. In support of this contention, the plaintiff cites and relies upon Cottle v. Johnson, 179 N. C., 426, 102 S. E., 769. In that case it was held that testimony by the plaintiff as to conversations between him and bis wife were competent as evidence tending to show their relations to each other, both before and after their separation. In the instant case the testimony of the plaintiff was properly excluded as hearsay. The court was mindful of the caution contained in the opinion in the cited case. The distinction between the instant case and the cited case is obvious.

The contention of the plaintiff cannot be sustained. There was no error in the trial. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.