Opinion ID: 1224738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appeal by plaintiff appellant as to defendants hare

Text: Plaintiff has five assignments of error. All are overruled. After the court had denied a motion by defendants Hare for judgment of compulsory nonsuit and the defendants excepted, the record shows the following: THE COURT then stated that it was going to allow certain portions of the testimony of Mrs. Cecelia Boulerice, one of the defendants, given at the prior trial when called as a witness by defendants Hare, to be read in evidence; to which both the plaintiff and defendants Boulerice noted their objection. PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTION AND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR No. 1. MR. WELLS: As against the plaintiff and the defendants Boulerice, the defendants Hare offer into evidence the following portions of the testimony of the defendant Cecelia Boulerice, given on the trial of this case in this court at the September 1965 Session. MR. TWIFORD: The plaintiff Williams objects as to the first part of the testimony. COURT: Overruled. You had better object as it comes up. PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTION AND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR No. 2. MR. WELLS (reading from the former transcript): Q. Had you at that point developed into a driver with the same confidence as you have now in driving an automobile? Objection by Plaintiff Williams. Overruled. PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTION AND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR No. 3. A. Well, you know I would not have the competency as a new driver as I would an old one. The Rules of Practice in this Court are mandatory and will be enforced. Pamlico Co. v. Davis, 249 N.C. 648, 107 S.E.2d 306; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126. An assignment of error must disclose the question sought to be presented without the necessity of going beyond the assignment itself. Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490, 124 S.E.2d 364; Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98, 95 S.E.2d 271. It is manifest that plaintiff's first two assignments of error disclose nothing prejudicial to plaintiff appellant, and according to the rules of this Court we have no disposition to embark upon a voyage of discovery through the pages of the record to ferret out what questions plaintiff appellant desires to present by these two assignments of error. It is a fact known generally by all men that a new driver of an automobile does not have the same competency as an experienced driver. It is our opinion, and we so hold, the admission of the testimony of Cecelia W. Boulerice given at a prior trial of this case when called as a witness by defendants Hare, Well, you know I would not have the competency as a new driver as I would an old one, even if it were incompetent, which we do not concede, could not have prejudiced plaintiff and could not have influenced the verdict in the instant case as to the defendants Hare. Plaintiff's fourth and fifth assignments of error are that the court erred in failing to set aside the verdict as being contrary to the law and weight of the evidence, and in the signing and entering of the judgment as to defendants Hare. These assignments of error are overruled. A motion to set aside the verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge, and the refusal to grant the motion is not appealable in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. 1 Strong's N.C.Index, Trial, § 51. There is nothing in the record to show that the trial judge abused his sound judicial discretion in denying plaintiff's motion. On plaintiff appellant's appeal as to defendants Hare, prejudicial error is not shown. Therefore, on plaintiff appellant's appeal as to defendants Hare we find No error.