Virginia Truck Growers Manufacturing Corp. v. Moore County Mutual Exchange

Per Curiam. Appellant expressly abandons all assignments of error except that relating to Exception No. 5, which is untenable. The assignment covering this exception is in this language: “ Jack Blue, witness for the defendant, appellee, testified: 'I was employed by the Moore County Mutual Exchange during the year 1934 as bookkeeper. I was present in January, 1934, when Mr. Miles of the Producers Mutual Exchange of Durham came there.’ Q. Did you hear a conversation between Mr. Miles and Mr. McCrimmon with respect to the Moore County Mutual Exchange handling fertilizer for Mr. Miles during 1934? Objection; overruled; and plaintiff excepts, and this is plaintiff’s Exception No. 5. A. Tes, sir. R., p. 25.” The question alone is not objectionable. The answer is harmless. Plaintiff discusses the competency of the testimony of the witness as to what the conversation was. But 'the record fails to show exception to the separate question eliciting same or to the statement by the witness of the substance of the conversation, and there is no assignment thereon. Exceptive assignments of error, and none other, are considered on appeal. Rule 19, sec. 3, of Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 200 N. C., 824; In re Will of Beard, 202 N. C., 661, 163 S. E., 748; S. v. Bittings, 206 N. C., 798, 175 S. E., 299. We find No error.