{
  "id": 1866080,
  "name": "The State vs. Branum",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Branum",
  "decision_date": "1861-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "540",
  "last_page": "541",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 Ark. 540"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1560,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.683163265861072e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8268518743756875
    },
    "sha256": "a6ebe74e227ac2ec86cec6e0ae95511ace000f555f1946a519bd0dfb607f1a0f",
    "simhash": "1:ccbfcba24097d6d8",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:15:02.560591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The State vs. Branum."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Compton\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOn an indictment, found in the Yell Circuit Court at September term, 1859, against William Aikin, for assault and battery, the name of Hiram Branum, the party injured, was endorsed as prosecutor. At a subsequent term, a nolle pros, was entered, and judgment for costs rendered against Branum. The case is brought here on appeal from the decision of the court below sustaining Branum\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment, and the question is, was Branum liable for the costs?\nIn a certain class of prosecutions \u2014 to which this case belongs \u2014 the. statute requires the name of the party injured to be endorsed on the indictment as prosecutor; and then provides that if any indictment, so endorsed, shall be returned \u201c not a true bill,\u201d or if the defendant be acquitted on the trial, the prosecutor shall be adjudged to pay the costs. Dig., chap, 52, secs. 89, 90, 91. The prosecutor, in the case before us, was clearly not liaftle. The entering a nolle pros, is not a trial within the meaning of the statute, or in any other sense, and unless there is a trial, where a true bill has been found, the prosecutor is not to be burdened with the costs \u2014 the law is so written, and we most apply it.\nLet the judgment be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Compton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hollowell, attorney general for the state.",
      "Batson and Cravens, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The State vs. Branum.\n.The prosecutor is not liable for costs, under the statute, triiere, instead of a trial, a nolle prosequi is entered.\nAppeal from Tell Circuit Court.\nHon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.\nHollowell, attorney general for the state.\nBatson and Cravens, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0540-01",
  "first_page_order": 548,
  "last_page_order": 549
}