{
  "id": 8681020,
  "name": "Goodman's administrator v. Armistead",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goodman's administrator v. Armistead",
  "decision_date": "1825-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "19",
  "last_page": "20",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Hawks 2"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.C. 2"
    }
  ],
  "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": "13 Will. 3",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Will.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2263,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "sha256": "dab2421e88a948c88b4d7ea67f7a10c62d525c18e3c0a51319bff296245f16fe",
    "simhash": "1:0046384d0613c219",
    "word_count": 408
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:05.914264+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Goodman\u2019s administrator v. Armistead."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tatxor, Chief Justice. \u2014\nThe only objection taken to this subpoena, is the omission of the date of the year of our Lord, or rather, the omission of the unit figure; but as the forty-fifth year of the independence is inserted, there can be no difficulty in ascertaining the other period. In England, the year of the king\u2019s reign forms a part of the date, to which the year of our Lord is regularly and usually added; but if the latter were omitted, the year of the reign being a matter of so much notoriety, is considered sufficient always to supply the omission. The Court will always notice what is the year of our Lord, from a statement of the year of the reign; for where a deed was declared upon as bearing date the 9.6th August, 13 Will. 3. and upon oyer, the date actually in the deed was 26th August, 1701; it was held to be no variance, anil it must so be understood from the. first date. (2 Ld. Raym. 795.) The era of our independence is a more certain rule compUtation of time, than the year a king begins j,\u00a1g re\u00a1gn> as being more familiarly known to the mass of citizens.\nAnd as the year of our Lord may be ascertained by the year of the reign, so where the latter is omitted, it is sufficient even in an indictment, if the time be ascertained by other means. Kelyng 10, 11. Upon the whole, it cannot be doubted that this is sufficient evidence of the party being subpoenaed.\nPer Curiam.\nJudgment affiimed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tatxor, Chief Justice. \u2014"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hogg, for plaintiff.",
      "L. Martin, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Goodman\u2019s administrator v. Armistead.\nFrom Chowan.\nA subpoena is good which is tested in a certain year of American Independence, though the year of our Lord is not named.\nThis was a set. fa. to the defendant as a defaulting witness, to which lie appeared and pleaded, \u201cnultiel record, never summoned, prevented by sickness.\u201d The jury found the issues for the plaintiff, and the Court adjudged there was such a record, and gave judgment for plaintiff: w'hereupon defendant appealed to this Court.\nThe evidence that defendant was summoned was a sub-pcena, perfect in all its parts, and regular, save that the year in which it issued was not named; it being tested \u201cthe 7th day of April in the XLY year of our Independence, Anno Dom. 182 \u2014 .\u201d This subpoena was returned liy the sheriff \u201c executed.\u201d\nHogg, for plaintiff.\nL. Martin, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0019-01",
  "first_page_order": 23,
  "last_page_order": 24
}