{
  "id": 8661236,
  "name": "STATE v. MILTON BARRETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Barrett",
  "decision_date": "1898-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "753",
  "last_page": "755",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "123 N.C. 753"
    }
  ],
  "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": "119 N. C., 901",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656800
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0901-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 3180,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.0202382924880763e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9066111576389203
    },
    "sha256": "e1e7598ddbe1c50509f7440899d9737301432f77552da1707109a1e343cf5984",
    "simhash": "1:63272388e8c8a5f2",
    "word_count": 567
  },
  "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. MILTON BARRETT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Furches, J.:\nThis is an indictment for the larceny of an axe. The defendant had been in the employ of the prosecutor who was a saw-mill owner, and sometime after the defendant left the prosecutor\u2019s employment he missed an axe. He testified that he did not know the axe was stolen, and, if it was stolen, he did not know that the defendant had stolen it.\nBut there was evidence tending to show that sometime after defendant left the prosecutor, he went to work for one Shannon and carried with him an axe ; and there was evidence tending to show that the axe he carried with him to Shannon\u2019s was the axe that belonged to the prosecutor, and the one that he said he had lost. The defendant alleged, in explanation of his possession, that he traded for the axe, and got it from a strange negro from South Carolina. Upon this evidence the court charged the jury as follows:\n\u2018 Tf you believe from the evidence that the prosecutor missed an axe, and if you should believe that the axe described by the witness, Shannon, as in the possession of the defendant, was that axe of prosecutor, and believe all this beyond a reasonable doubt, you will bring in a verdict of guilty, otherwise you will acquit'the defendant.\u201d\nThis was the whole charge, and the jury \u201cbrought in\u201d a verdict of guilty. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nThe charge is fatally defective for the reason that it does not submit the question of felonDus intent to the jury, which is one of the necessary ingredients of larceny. State v. Coy, 119 N. C., 901, and cases there cited. For this error the defendant is entitled to a new trial.\nWe have before called attention to the careless manner in which juries are often charged \u2014 \u201cif you believe\u201d such a fact or facts, when the charge should be, \u201cif you find from the evidence\u201d such to be the fact or facts. This manner of charging the jury is probably the result of carelessness of expression. But it should not be indulged in, as there is a substantial difference in the two manners of charging the jury. A juror may very well believe a thing is so, when he would not be willing to find that it was a fact established by the evidence.\nFor the error pointed out in the charge, there must.be a\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Furches, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Armfield & Williams, for defendant (appellant).",
      "Mr. Zeh V. Walser, Attorney General, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. MILTON BARRETT.\n(Decided December 13, 1898.)\nLarceny \u2014 Felonious Intent \u2014 Judge\u2019s Charge.\n1. Larceny is a felony, and a charge is fatally defective, that does not submit the question of felonious intent to the jury, as that is one of the necessary ingredients of larceny.\n2. The proper, expression to be used in a charge to the jury should be: \u201cif you find from the evidence such to be the fact, or facts\u201d instead of: \u201cif you believe such a fact or facts\u201d which is often, but improperly used.\nIndictment, larceny of an axe, tried before Greene, J., at Spring Term, 1898, of Union Superior Court. The evidence was circumstantial, of which possession by the defendant was the principal circumstance against him.\nThe charge of his Honor was very brief and is given in full in the opinion. Exception by defendant.\nVerdict of guilty; judgment and appeal.\nMessrs. Armfield & Williams, for defendant (appellant).\nMr. Zeh V. Walser, Attorney General, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0753-01",
  "first_page_order": 779,
  "last_page_order": 781
}