{
  "id": 8651521,
  "name": "STATE v. A. J. BAKER. (APPEAL BY PROSECUTOR YOUNG)",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Baker",
  "decision_date": "1894-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "812",
  "last_page": "813",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "114 N.C. 812"
    }
  ],
  "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., 660",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651920
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0660-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651935
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0662-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 106,
    "char_count": 1517,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20759820360183162
    },
    "sha256": "45291598dbe414155c6e8bec00294afca17607c84d958ea5f0d043899acf3656",
    "simhash": "1:c28fffb54ff8790e",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:42.198773+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. A. J. BAKER. (APPEAL BY PROSECUTOR YOUNG)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nIt was found by his Honor that the prosecution in this action \u201cwas not for the public interest,\u201d which was equivalent to a finding that it \u201cwas not required by the public interest.\u201d That is conclusive. State v. Roberts, 106 N. C., 662. The appellant, C. A. Young, was marked as prosecutor on the bill before it was acted on by the grand jury, and it was proper under those circumstances that he should be adjudged to be liable for costs to the exoneration of the county. The Code, \u00a7737; State v. Hamilton, 106 N. C., 660. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. A. J. BAKER. (APPEAL BY PROSECUTOR YOUNG).\nProsecution of Criminal Action \u2014 Public Interest \u2014 Costs of Prosecution of Criminal Action, tuhen prosecutor taxed with.\n1. A finding by the trial Judge that a prosecution of a criminal action \u201cwas not for the public interest\u201d is equivalent to a finding that it \u201c was not required by the public interest.\u201d\n2. In such case the person marked as prosecutor on a bill before it was acted on by the grand jury was properly adjudged liable for the costs.\nThe defendant was indicted for disposing of mortgaged property, and, upon his trial before Ilolce, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1893, of Wilson Superior Court, was acquitted.\nThe Court found that the prosecution was not for the public interest, and adjudged that the prosecutor, C: A. Young, of the firm of C. A. Young & Bro., who was marked on the bill as prosecutor, should pay the costs, whereupon he appealed.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0812-01",
  "first_page_order": 840,
  "last_page_order": 841
}