{
  "id": 8654780,
  "name": "STATE v. NATHANIEL BUNTING",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bunting",
  "decision_date": "1896-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1200",
  "last_page": "1200",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 N.C. 1200"
    }
  ],
  "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": "117 N. C., 774",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653998
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0774-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 979",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655955
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0979-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N. C., 848",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652081
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0848-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 795",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651644
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0795-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N. C., 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2092703
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/67/0025-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 91,
    "char_count": 883,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.016664312223398e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46456511557237506
    },
    "sha256": "a5f4f216f5ae70627addf02cc6d0f847afac0ea8b62cdd831eff31d3d1f6c734",
    "simhash": "1:fa33526334e616c4",
    "word_count": 148
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:06.557243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. NATHANIEL BUNTING."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faircloth, C. J.:\nThe defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of perjury. A motion in arrest of judgment, because the indictment failed to charge that it was committed \u201cfeloniously,\u201d was overruled and the defendant appealed. This question has been so often decided that it requires no further discussion. State v. Purdie, 67 N. C., 25; State v. Skidmore, 109 N. C., 795; State v. Bryan, 112 N. C., 848; State v. Caldwell, Ibid., 854; State v. Wilson, 116 N. C., 979; State v. Snow, 117 N. C., 774.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faircloth, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General and Messrs. Shepherd & Busbee, for the State.",
      "Messrs. F. B. Cooper and John D. Kerr, for the defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. NATHANIEL BUNTING.\nForm of Indictment for Perjury.\nAn indictment for perjury must charge that it was done feloni-ously.\nINDICTMENT for perjury, tried before Graham, J., at October Term, 1895, of Sampson Superior Court.\nThe Attorney General and Messrs. Shepherd & Busbee, for the State.\nMessrs. F. B. Cooper and John D. Kerr, for the defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "1200-01",
  "first_page_order": 1236,
  "last_page_order": 1236
}