Case Name: R. T. DICKERSON v. E. E. DAIL
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1912-09-18
Citations: 159 N.C. 541
Docket Number: 
Parties: R. T. DICKERSON v. E. E. DAIL.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
R. T. DICKERSON v. E. E. DAIL.
(Filed 18 September, 1912.)
1. Appeal and Error — Evidence — Questions Ruled Out — Expected' Answers — Prejudice.
It must appear on appeal that the objecting party has been prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence; and when questions are ruled out there must be a statement of what the answers of the witnesses were expected to be, for the appellate court to pass upon whether reversible error had been committed.
2. Damages — Facts in Mitigation — Evidence—Pleadings.
For evidence to show facts in mitigation of damages to be competent, the facts must be alleged in the answer.
Appjbal' by plaintiff from 0. H. Allen■, J., at January Civil Term, 1912, of Pitt.
This is an action to recover damages for slander, tbe plaintiff alleging that tbe defendant bad charged that be bad stolen certain hoes.
There was a verdict and judgment for tbe plaintiff, and tbe defendant appealed.
Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Justice Allen.
W. F. Evans for plaintiff.
F. C. Harding and Harry Skirmer for defendant.

Opinion:
Allen, J.
Tbe exceptions set out in tbe record relate to rulings upon tbe evidence, and all belong- to one of two classes.
In tbe first class the questions are set out, but there is no statement as to tbe answer of tbe witness when tbe question was admitted, nor as to tbe evidence sought to be elicited when it was excluded; and as we cannot see that tbe defendant has been prejudiced, tbe exceptions cannot be sustained. S. v. Leak, 156 N. C., 643.
If, however, tbe evidence was of the character indicated on tbe argument, we are of opinion that there was no error in tbe rulings of tbe court.
Tbe other exceptions reláte to tbe exclusion of evidence as to facts'in mitigation of damages, which are not alleged in tbe answer, and it is settled that such evidence is not admissible. Upchurch v. Robertson, 127 N. C., 127.
We find no error.
Affirmed.