{
  "id": 8654932,
  "name": "STATE v. ERASTUS DOWNS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Downs",
  "decision_date": "1896-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1242",
  "last_page": "1243",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 N.C. 1242"
    }
  ],
  "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": "104 N. C., 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651349
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0354-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N. C., 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652231
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/105/0056-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1374,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.145350780645837e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47440198250940496
    },
    "sha256": "5423fbd529856c0e9d2ffc448d619f69f04700e15008fad04044d599142e90e0",
    "simhash": "1:9a5faa4a9e1b8d91",
    "word_count": 226
  },
  "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. ERASTUS DOWNS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThe evidence that the shooting had occurred about the time the defendant\u2019s distillery had been cut up was admitted by the court, as it stated, simply to fix the date of the assault. Thus restricted, certainly it was unobjectionable. The evidence of Robert Boyd was very indefinite. Though the defendant as-lced that it be excluded, there was no exception for failure to. do so. Code, Sec. 412 (2). Taylor v. Plummer, 105 N. C., 56. The exception to the charge is not to any specific-instruction, but is a \u201cbroadside exception\u201d to the entire charge, and therefore cannot be considered for the reasons given in McKinnon v. Morrison, 104 N. C., 354, and the numerous cases affirming it, Clark\u2019s Code, (2nd Ed.,) pp. 382, 383, and in supplement to same, p. 64. Besides, the charge presented no grounds for exception by this defendant.\nNo Error..",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Messrs: Ferguson c& Ferguson, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ERASTUS DOWNS.\n\u201c Broadside Exceptions \u201d to Judge\u2019s Charge \u2014 Exceptions to Evidence.\n1. Rulings of the lower court upon the admission or rejection of evidence will not be reviewed unless excepted to on the trial.\n\u2022 2. \u201cBroadside exceptions\u201d to the judge\u2019s charge will not be considered.\nINDICTMENT for assault and battery, tried before Ewart, J., at January Term, 1896, of the Criminal Circuit Court of Haywood County.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nMessrs: Ferguson c& Ferguson, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "1242-01",
  "first_page_order": 1278,
  "last_page_order": 1279
}