Coxe v. Singleton.

BROWN, J. 1. Tbe plaintiff excepted to tbe issues ■ submitted. They plainly cover tbe controversy between tbe parties as disclosed by tbe evidence. Tbe issues were sufficient to enable tbe jury to intelligently find tbe facts in dispute, and to enable tbe plaintiff to present every view of tbe evidence contended for by bim. It is true tbe issues arise upon tbe pleadings and not upon evidential facts, but where there are no written pleadings, as in this case, it is tbe duty of tbe court to so frame the issues after bearing tbe evidence as to develop tbe whole case, and to present to tbe jury tbe real issues of fact in dispute. His Honor did that in this case. 2. Tbe witness Marshall testified to tbe good character of tbe plaintiff, and also, on cross examination, to tbe good character of Robert Singleton, one of tbe defendants. Upon redirect examination, 'the plaintiff’s counsel asked tbe witness : “Have you not beard that tbe defendant, Robert Singleton, committed rape'upon a negro girl ?” Also “Have you not beard that Robert Singleton padded bis pay roll at tbe mill ?” These questions were excluded and tbe plaintiff excepted. We think tbe ruling of tbe court was fully sustained by tbe decisions of this court wherein tbe rule of practice is fully discussed. State v. Bullard, 100 N. C., 488; State v. Boswell, 13 N. C., 209; Barton v. Morphes, ibid, 520. It is to be noted, however, that tbe plaintiff bad full benefit of tbe evidence upon cross-examination of Robert Singleton, who admitted that he bad been accused of padding bis pay roll at tbe mill, and bad been charged with and acquitted of tbe crime of rape. *363 3. Tbe plaintiff pxesented to tbe court a paper writing signed by tbe several jurors wbo tried tbe case, to tbe effect that they did not fully understand the issues and tbe legal effect of their findings, and moved to set aside the-verdict. Tbe court declined and tbe plaintiff excepted. It is familiar learning that jurors cannot be beard to impeach tbeir verdict. If that were allowed, law suits would seldom be determined. The legal effect of tbeir findings is to put an end to this case. Tbe fact that tbe jury unnecessarily answered tbe third issue, is conclusive that they intended to find that tbe plaintiff did not perform the contract on bis part, for if tbe lumber tendered was worth only $5, it fell far short of the required quality, according to tbe plaintiff’s own version of tbe contract. We think there was no error committed, and tbe judgment is Affirmed.