{
  "id": 8656151,
  "name": "STATE v. T. C. McCOY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McCoy",
  "decision_date": "1895-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1059",
  "last_page": "1060",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 N.C. 1059"
    }
  ],
  "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": "94 N. C., 933",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652529
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0933-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N. C., 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683482
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/89/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N. C., 692",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12117554
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0692-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N. C., 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2063,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.435,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1639501991693687e-07,
      "percentile": 0.770245871477449
    },
    "sha256": "1f01ffef026bd3d0d17fb3c578ca0984eb233ffa0c2d7b4c34c9d8927336f5ef",
    "simhash": "1:7403d228863e1b8c",
    "word_count": 375
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:04:38.706573+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. T. C. McCOY,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eaiecloth, C. J.:\nThe Act of Assembly, 1891, Ch. 29, declares, \u201cThat it shall be unlawful for any person to play at any game of chance, at which money, property or other thing of value is bet, whether the same be in stake or not, and those who play and those who bet thereon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.\u201d\nThe ordinance of the City of Asheville under which the defendant is arraigned, adopted July 8th, 1887, says \u201cAny and all persons who shall (play) at any game of chance in the corporate limits of the city of Asheville with cards, for any money or other articles of value, whether said money is staked or not, shall pay a fine of $50.\u201d The defendant is charged with gambling in said city in 1894, by playing a game, of chance with cards for money, &c., and the only question submitted is \u201cHoes the Mayor have jurisdiction of such offences ?\u201d Under the Act of 1891, supra, it is clear that the Superior Court has jurisdiction of the offence therein declared, and it is so well settled that municipal by-laws and ordinances must be in harmony with the general laws of the State and when they are in conflict the by-laws and ordinances must give way, that we deem it unnecessary to reargue the question. Town of Washington v. Hammond, 76 N. C., 83; State v. Langston, 88 N. C., 692; State v. Brittain, 89 N. C., 574; State v. Keith, 94 N. C., 933.\nThe fact that cities may have different regulations on the same subject can make no difference for they are\"all subject to the rule above stated. \"We think the Mayor in the present case was without jurisdiction of the offence charged.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eaiecloth, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. T. C. McCOY,\nOrdmcmce \u2014 Conflict with General Law.\nGambling being an offence under the general law (Ch. 29, Acts of 1891) a city ordinance covering the same subject is void.\nThe defendant was convicted of gambling in violation of a city ordinance and appealed to the Criminal Court of BuNCOMbe in which, at the January Term, 1895, he was tried and convicted before Jones, J., and a jury, and appealed.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "1059-01",
  "first_page_order": 1087,
  "last_page_order": 1088
}