{
  "id": 8660780,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN HORTON and GEORGE W. WARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Horton",
  "decision_date": "1898-10-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "695",
  "last_page": "697",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "123 N.C. 695"
    }
  ],
  "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": "71 N. C., 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277322
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ala., 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N. C., 288",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2090075
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/61/0288-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 245,
    "char_count": 3610,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8687793023533566e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7259930984393299
    },
    "sha256": "04d9234ca454a7e28a8edc6c7228d76af43a85ba681c46bdb1dcf57a37751649",
    "simhash": "1:dc70c110dfc965aa",
    "word_count": 625
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:57:12.442116+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN HORTON and GEORGE W. WARD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThe defendant gave recognizance for his appearance \u201cat the next Term of the Superior Court on the 3d Monday in September.\u201d At that term, the Judge being ill did not appear and the court was \u201cadjourned until next term.\u201d Code, Section 926.' It would be a grave miscarriage of justice if on such facts all recognizances are discharged when no officer is present authorized to take renewals. In Askew v. Stevenson, 61 N. C., 288, it was held that the cause was continued \u201ccertainly for one term\u201d and probably \u201cfrom term to term until the attendance of a Judge to hold the court,\u201d by virtue 'of Revised Code, Chapter 31, Section 24. That section -was brought forward in The Code, Section 919,'with the words stricken out which formerly restricted its application to civil cases. Certainly .this section applies in the present case, as a special term was held in January following, of which \u201cdue notice was given by publication in the newspapers and otherwise,\u201d and Section 919 provides that all persons \u201chound to appear at the next regular term of the court shall attend at the special term under the same tules, etc.\u201d The recognizance to appear at September term was hot to \u201cdepart the same without leave.\u201d There being no Judge present ho leave was given beyond the adjournment \u201ctill next term.\u201d The Code, Section 926, by operation of law carried all matters over to \u201cthe next regular term\u201d in the same plight and condition (Walker v. State, 6 Ala., 360) and this was transferred to the intervening special term by virtue of The Code, Section 919. No hardship can accrue from any bona fide mistake in such matters, as the Judge has discretion to remit or lessen forfeitures in all cases (Code, Section 1205) but in refusing judgment on the scire facias there was error. State v. Houston, 71 N. C., 174, has no application, for there after the bond was given a new regular term was established by law to he held before the term at which the defendant was bound over to appear.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Zeb V. Walser, Attorney General, for the State (appellant).",
      "Mr. G. W. Ward, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN HORTON and GEORGE W. WARD.\n(Decided October 10, 1898.)\nForfeited Recognizance.\nA defendant bound over to answer a criminal charge at a regular Term of the Superior Court, which Term is not held in consequence of the absence of the Judge, is required by virtue of Section 919 of The Code to attend at an intervening Special Term subsequently appointed and held.\nScire facias upon forfeited recognizance, heard before Norwood, J., at Spring Term, 1898, of the Superior Court of Pasquota'nk County. .\nThe defendant, Horton, with Ward as his surety, was bound over by a Justice of the Peace for his appearance at Fall Term, 1897, (3d Monday in September, 1897) of the Superior Court of Pasquotank County, to answer a charge of larceuy. This Term was not held owing to the sickness of the Judge. The defendant was in attendance.\nA Special Term was advertised and held for the county in January, 1898, at which Term the grand jury found a true bill of indictment against Horton, who was called and failed to appear, and judgment nisi was rendered against him and his surety, Ward, and a scire fa-cias was ordered, returnable to Spring Term, 1898, and duly served. The defendant Ward filed his answer to the scire facias, setting forth ' substantially the forego-going facts:\nThe Solicitor for the State moved for judgment absolute upon the scire facias and forfeited recognizance, which motion his Honor refused, and directed the writ of scire facias to be discharged.\nThe State excepted to the ruling, and appealed.\nMr. Zeb V. Walser, Attorney General, for the State (appellant).\nMr. G. W. Ward, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0695-01",
  "first_page_order": 721,
  "last_page_order": 723
}