From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Berrier

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1890
12 S.E. 251 (N.C. 1890)

Opinion

September Term, 1890.

Evidence — Witness.

A witness having stated, upon cross-examination, that the relations between her and the defendant were unfriendly, it was not error to refuse to permit the further inquiry, whether there was not a bitter feud between her family and that of the defendant, to be made.

APPEAL from Bynum, J., at September Term, 1890, of DAVIDSON. (857)

Attorney-General and R. H. Battle for the State.

No counsel for defendant.


A witness for the State was asked, on cross-examination, as to her feelings towards the defendants. She answered that they were not friendly. She was then asked if there was not a bitter feud between her family and the family of defendants. On objection by the State, the question was excluded, and defendants excepted. The last question was relevant and admissible only to lay the foundation on which to base the further question, whether witness was not unfriendly to the defendants. As she had already answered that inquiry direct, the latter question could serve no purpose, and was properly excluded.

No error.


Summaries of

State v. Berrier

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1890
12 S.E. 251 (N.C. 1890)
Case details for

State v. Berrier

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. ANDREW BERRIER AND GRANT BERRIER

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Sep 1, 1890

Citations

12 S.E. 251 (N.C. 1890)
107 N.C. 856

Citing Cases

State v. McNeill

No error. Affirmed. Cited: S. v. Bowers, 94 N.C. 912; S. v. Jones, 97 N.C. 472; S. v. Hall, ibid., 477; S. v.…

State v. Harris

Error. Cited: S. v. Perdue, 107 N.C. 856; S. v. Arnold, ibid., 863; S. v. Peoples, 108 N.C. 769; S. v.…