{
  "id": 8651827,
  "name": "THE STATE v. JOHN W. NEAL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Neal",
  "decision_date": "1891-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "859",
  "last_page": "860",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 N.C. 859"
    }
  ],
  "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": "106 N. C., 758",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652153
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0758-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 698",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652022
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0698-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 126,
    "char_count": 1346,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.41186757842258e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48304997704499375
    },
    "sha256": "da608fd1e45f989e91c32a7d8a431852e537b962ef565ec373d33feef1c7a680",
    "simhash": "1:8aa2c788d6a8054b",
    "word_count": 229
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:39.876308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. JOHN W. NEAL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Shepherd, J.:\nThe warrant simply charges that the defendant \u201c wilfully refused to attend and work on the public road after being lawfully warned, contrary to the form of the statute,\u201d etc.\nThere is nothing to negative the payment of one dollar in discharge of the defendant\u2019s liability to perforin the labor required of him. No amendment was asked at any stage of the trial, either before or after verdict, and upon conviction the defendant moved in arrest of judgment.\nIt is expressly decided that the motion should have-been allowed. State v. Pool, 106 N. C., 698 ; State v. Baker, 106 N. C., 758. The insufficiency of the warrant was not, we presume, called to the attention of his ITonor, the argument before him being addressed to the constitutionality of the act under which the defendant was prosecuted.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Shepherd, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Mr. W. A. Guthrie, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. JOHN W. NEAL.\nHighway \u2014 Failure to Work\u2014 Warrant \u2014 Negative Averments.\nThe warrant against one for refusing to work on a public road must negative the payment of one dollar in discharge of the defendant\u2019s liability.\nThis was a CRIMINAL ACTION for failure to work on a public road, tried on appeal from a Justice of the Peace, before Winston, J., at August Term, 1891, of ORANGE Superior Court.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nMr. W. A. Guthrie, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0859-01",
  "first_page_order": 893,
  "last_page_order": 894
}