{
  "id": 8652778,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES TWEEDY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tweedy",
  "decision_date": "1894-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "704",
  "last_page": "706",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 N.C. 704"
    }
  ],
  "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": "98 N. C., 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275712
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/98/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N. C., 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652163
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/105/0040-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 N. C., 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274873
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/28/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N. C., 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696779
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/25/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N. C., 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273225
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/98/0044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 4109,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.961041768676241e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9042785892150469
    },
    "sha256": "0661be87c7b12d53a828b8be22e742c96025ab67c060fa27fadd97e1e001213d",
    "simhash": "1:7738e92a591d49b6",
    "word_count": 714
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:52.252220+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES TWEEDY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nIt was competent for the town to enact the ordinance that no hogs should run at large within the town limits, and to prescribe a penalty for violation of such ordinance, and it would make no difference if the owner of the hog should live outside of such limits. Rose v. Hardie, 98 N. C., 44; Hellen v. Noe, 25 N. C., 493; Whitfield v. Longest, 28 N. C., 268. Penal statutes must be strictly construed. The Code, sec. 1002, applies only to the injury or killing of live stock \u201c lawfully running at large.\u201d This hog was unlawfully running at large contrary to a valid town ordinance, according to the special verdict. The defendant could not, therefore, have been found guilty under The Code, sec. 1002, as held by his Honor. Besides, the indictment fails to charge the material allegation that the live stock was \u201c lawfully \u201d running at large, and judgment might have been arrested in this Court for insufficiency of the indictment. Rule 27 of this Court; Whitehurst v. Pettipher, 105 N. C., 40. Nor could the indictment be sustained under The Code, sec. 1082, \u201c Injury to Personal Property,\u201d as there is neither allegation nor finding that the injury was \u201c wilfully and wantonly \u201d done. The words \u201c unlawfully and on purpose\u201d will not supply their place. State v. Morgan, 98 N. C., 641. The indictment is equally insufficient under The Gode, sec. 2482, \u201c Cruelty to Animals.\u201d Upon the special verdict the defen-ant should have been adjudged not guilty. Reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General and W. J. Peele, for the State.",
      "Mr. James E. Moore, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES TWEEDY.\nIndictment for Killing Live Stock \u2014 Hogs Running at Large\u2014 Injury to Personal Property \u2014 Cruelty to Animals \u2014 Indictment, Sufficiency of \u2014 Town Ordinance.\n1. It is competent for an incorporated town to enact an ordinance that no hog shall run at large within the town limits, and to presraribe a penalty for its violation, whether the owner lives within or outside the corporate limits.\n2. One who kills a hog running at large in a town in violation of an ordinance prohibiting hogs from running at large therein, although i he owner lives outside the corporate limits, is not indictable under The Code, \u00a7 1002, which applies only to the injury or killing of live stock \u201c lawfully running at large.'\u2019\n3. An indictment for killing a hog running at large in a town in violation of a town ordinance prohibiting the running at large of hogs therein, which charges that the killing was done \u201cunlawfully and on purpose,\u201d cannot be sustained under section 1082 of The Code, where there is neither an allegation nor finding that the injury was \u201cwilfully and unlawfully\u201d done; nor, for the same reason, can it be sustained under section 2482.\nIndictment for killing live stock, tried before Bynum, J.r and a jury, at March Term, 1894, of Martin Superior Court.\nA special verdict was rendered, setting forth, in substance, that Jamesville, Martin County, is an incorporated town, and that an ordinance had been adopted and was in force at the time of the killing of the hog hereinafter mentioned, as follows :\n\u201c Hogs shall not run at large within the town limits. Any hog or hogs found running at large on the streets of the town shall, after three days\u2019 notice to the owner of such hog or hogs, be taken up by the town constable, and the owner shall then pay a fine of 25 cents for each hog so taken up, and all costs; and on failure to redeem any hog so taken up, the constable shall then and there advertise and sell, according to law\u201d! that there was no law of the State requiring stock to be fenced up, or prohibiting hogs from running at large in the territory in which the town of Jamesville is located, and that the town of Jamesville had not fenced its limits. That John Gaster, owner of the hog killed by the defendant when it was-running at large in the streets of Jamesville, lived seventy-five yards outside the corporate limits of the town.\nUpon this special verdict, his Honor was of the opinion-, that the defendant was guilty, and the jury so found, and' from the judgment thereon the defendant appealed.\nThe Attorney General and W. J. Peele, for the State.\nMr. James E. Moore, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0704-01",
  "first_page_order": 724,
  "last_page_order": 726
}