{
  "id": 8652133,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES RHODES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rhodes",
  "decision_date": "1893-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "856",
  "last_page": "857",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "112 N.C. 856"
    }
  ],
  "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., 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274951
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0617-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N. C, 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650062
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/103/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N. C., 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274048
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/110/0500-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1430,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.402,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0189641752386648e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5446825278230507
    },
    "sha256": "748b0bc30f5ece0a2fb0213bcbcffec7a25645d1166ffb3eb128b91be8f16456",
    "simhash": "1:5337593a570fbfeb",
    "word_count": 242
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:34.318959+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES RHODES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe right to appeal in forma pauperis requires some restrictions against abuse. What thej\u201d shall be is for the Legislature to determine ; it has set out the requirements in The Code, \u00a71235. The Court has no right to abrogate any of these requisites. This has been often decided. State v. Jackson, at this Term; State v. Wylde, 110 N. C., 500; State v. Tow, 103 N. C, 350; State v. Jones, 93 N. C., 617; and, indeed, in a full score of cases.\nThe present case presents an affidavit which lacks the statutory requirement of an averment \u201cof good faith.\u201d The appellant has not done what was requisite to place his appeal before us. We cannot help him, and the attempted appeal must be dismissed.\nAppeal Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Mr. W. M. Person, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES RHODES.\nPractic\u00f3 \u2014 Pauper\u2019s Appeal \u2014 Insufficiency of Affidavit.\nAn affidavit to obtain an appeal in forma paupertu, which lacks the statutory requirement of an averment of good faith, is insufficient and unavailing.\nIndiotmeNT against the defendant, James Rhodes, for burning certain barns, the property of Mrs. Mary H. King, tried before Shuford, J., and a jury, at January Term, 1898, of FrankxiN Superior Court.\nTliere was a verdict of guilty, and from the judgment thereon defendant was allowed to appeal in forma pauperis, hut in the affidavit omitted to aver that the application was made in good faith.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nMr. W. M. Person, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0856-01",
  "first_page_order": 888,
  "last_page_order": 889
}