{
  "id": 8651656,
  "name": "THE STATE v. W. H. HICKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hicks",
  "decision_date": "1888-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "747",
  "last_page": "749",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 N.C. 747"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C., 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274756
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0578-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3759,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3232162509642898e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7902313995912503
    },
    "sha256": "17acb87dd924ee83cc308c21065f6b511619e1cf0f4240583d39b2ae7b7d1bd6",
    "simhash": "1:9a3151e681287e29",
    "word_count": 643
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:51:11.114152+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. W. H. HICKS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Davis, J.\n(after stating the case.) We have not been-favored with an argument for the defendant, and no error is assigned in the record, but it is suggested that the exception \u2022may be to so much of the judgment as imposes imprisonment \u201cat hard labor on the public roads for a term of sixty days.\"\nBy section 1117 of The Code, under which the defendant was indicted and convicted, it is declared that, \u201cif any person shall sell spirituous or malt or other intoxicating liquors on Sunday * * * * * the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by fine or imprison.-ment, or both, in the discretion of the Court.\u201d\nBy chapter 355 of the Acts 'of 1887, it is, among other things, enacted : \u201c That when any county has made provision for the working of convicts up >n the public road, or when any number of counties have jointly made provision for working convicts upon the public roads, it shall be lawful and the duty of the -Judge holding Court in said counties to sentence to imprisonment at hard labor on the public road, for such terms as are now prescribed by law for their imprisonment in the county jail or in the State prison, the following class of convicts: First, all persons convicted of offences the punishment whereof would otherwise be wholly \u25a0 or in part imprisonment in the common jail,\u201d &c.\nThe act further gives to the county authorities power to make all needful rules and regulations for the successful working of convicts upon the public roads.\nUnder section 1117 of The Code, the punishment of the prisoner would be in part imprisonment in the common jail (State v. Norwood, 93 N. C., 578), and therefore, if the county -of Durham has made provision for \u201c working convicts upon the public roads,\u201d the Court had the right to impose the-sentence set out in-the record\nIf it be said the record must show that the county of Dur-had taken advantage of the Act of 1887, ch. 355, and that-this does not appear in the record, the answer is, the statute-makes il the \u201c duty of the Judge holding Court'in any county where provision is made for working convicts upon the public road, to sentence the class of convicts named \u201c to imprisonment at hard labor on the public road.\u201d He holds Court-in the county and must get information from the county record or the county authorities, upon which he acts, in-imposing the sentence, and while, perhaps, it would be well that the judgment should state that the county had made-provision for working convicts on the public road, we must assume, in the absence of any suggestion or intimation to-the contrary, that it was imposed in accordance with his duty and the authority conferred by chapter 355, Acts of\" 1887. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Davis, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. W. H. HICKS.\nLiquor Selling \u2014 Punishment \u2014Presumption.\n1. A defendant, convicted of unlawful liquor selling, may be, by virtue \u25a0 of ch. 355, Laws 1887, punished by imprisonment at hard labor on the public roads.\n2. Where judgment has been rendered imposing such punishment, it' will be presumed the county authorities have made the proper provisions for its enforcement.\nINDICTMENT, for unlawfully selling spirituous liquors, tried before Merrimon, J., at Spring Term, 1888, of the Superior' Court of Durham County.\nThe defendant was indicted for selling spirituous liquors on Sunday. The indictment was in proper form, and there-was a verdict of guilty.\nThereupon, \u201cthe Solicitor for the State, praying the judgment of the Court on the verdict rendered, it is ordered by the Court that the defendant, W. H. Hicks, be imprisoned' at hard labor on the public roads for a term of sixty days,, and that he pay a fine of $25 and the costs.\u201d\nFrom this judgment the defendant appealed.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0747-01",
  "first_page_order": 779,
  "last_page_order": 781
}