Edwards v. Whitehead, 214 N.C. 838 (1938)

Nov. 9, 1938 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

214 N.C. 838

EMMA HENSON EDWARDS and JAMES EVERETT HENSON v. ERNEST B. WHITEHEAD and ELSIE WHITEHEAD, His Wife.

(Filed 9 November, 1938.)

Appeal by defendants from Warliclc, J., at March Term, 1938, of RaNBolph.

No error.

Action to recover damages for trespass on land. Upon issues submitted, tbe jury rendered tbe following verdict:

“1. Are tbe plaintiffs tbe owners in fee and entitled to tbe immediate possession of tbe lands embraced witbin tbe lines of Red A, Red B, Red O, Red D, and back along tbe Cberaw Road to Red A, as indicated on tbe map of tbe court survey in tbis case? Ans.: ‘Yes.’

“2. Have tbe defendants unlawfully and willfully trespassed thereon by cutting and removing timber and trees and doing injury to tbe growing crop ? Ans.: ‘Yes.’

“3. What damages, if any, bave tbe plaintiffs sustained by reason of such trespass? Ans.: ‘$65.00.’”

From judgment on tbe verdict, defendants appealed.

J. V. Wilson and H. M. Botins for plaintiffs.

J. Q. Preveiie for defendants.

Pee Cubiam.

There was sufficient evidence to warrant submission of tbe case to tbe jury upon all tbe issues raised by tbe pleadings. Appellants’ assignments of error based upon exceptions to tbe charge to tbe jury cannot be sustained. They principally relate to statements of contentions not called to tbe court’s attention at tbe time (S. v. Herndon, 211 N. C., 123, 189 S. E., 173). Tbe exception to tbe ruling of tbe court in permitting certain witnesses to be sworn and tendered is without merit. Tbis was a matter witbin tbe discretion of tbe trial judge. Issues of fact bave been determined by tbe jury adversely to tbe defendants, and in tbe trial we find

No error.