{
  "id": 8727129,
  "name": "Mayers vs. The State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mayers v. State",
  "decision_date": "1846-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "174",
  "last_page": "175",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 Ark. 174"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1955,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.871964132982944e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4597439850740333
    },
    "sha256": "dfbe2bc306af1f8553414d916a9ff72b6531c6f07574023dfa783ce8edbd40e0",
    "simhash": "1:7f9b0619e36aa13f",
    "word_count": 342
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:58.213020+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mayers vs. The State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Oldham, J.\nIt has frequently been decided by this court that it will not interfere and reverse a judgment of the circuit court for refusing a new trial upon the mere weight of evidence. In this case the defendant below introduced no evidence, and that produced by the State fully warranted the verdict of the jury.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Oldham, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Walker, for plaintiff.",
      "Watkins, Attorney General, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mayers vs. The State.\n\u25a0This court will not interfere and reverse a judgment of tlie circuit court for refusing a new trial upon the mere weight of evidence.\nWrit of -Error tb the Circuit Court of Crawford, County.\nThis was an indictment against Abram G. Mayers for an assault and battery, determined in the Crawford circuit court at the August term, 1845, before Brown, judge.\nThe indictment charged the defendant with an assault and battery upon one Mannet, whose Christian name to the grand jurors was unknown, on the 10th June 1844, in said county. The case was submitted to a jury, on plea of not guilty, and defendant was convicted. He moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence, which the court refused, he excepted and took a bill of exceptions, setting out the evidence, which was in substance as follows:\nStandifer, witness for the State, stated that about the 10th June 1844 he saw defendant strike a man divers hard blows with his fists, in Crawford county. He did not know the name of the person upon whom the battery was committed, but heard some one say his name was Mannet. Hunter,- another witness for the State, testified that he saw defendant strike a man several times with his fists in a rude and angry manner, in the month of June 1844, in said county. Witness had heard the name of the person upon whom the offence was committed, but had entirely forgotten it \u2014 that it sounded like Manet, Mannet, Menet, or some such name : -which was all the evidence introduced on the trial.\nDefendant brought error.\nW. Walker, for plaintiff.\nWatkins, Attorney General, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0174-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 175
}