Opinion

Hooper v. . Hooper

  • 165 N.C. 605
  • 81 S.E. 933
  • 1914 N.C. LEXIS 320
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
May 20, 1914
Status
Published
Author
Cuabk
On the bench
Hoke, Cuabk
Cited by
15 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.8%

The opinion

Cuabk, C. J.,

concurring: It will be noted that Revisal, 1564, 1630, and 1636, do not disqualify a husband or wife from being witness in their own behalf in actions for divorce or criminal conversation or in criminal actions except when such testimony would be “for or against the other.” In Broom v. Broom, 130 N. C., 562 , the testimony of the wife denying the specific acts testified to by certain witnesses was not “for” the husband so as to aid him in getting divorce, nor was it against him as proving anything that he had done.

*611 Rut in tbe present case tbe testimony of tbe busband, as the Court bolds, “bad a direct tendency to establish tbe ground of divorce against tbe wife.”

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.