{
  "id": 11275204,
  "name": "STATE v. E. W. GATEWOOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gatewood",
  "decision_date": "1899-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "694",
  "last_page": "695",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 N.C. 694"
    }
  ],
  "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": "114 N. C., 830",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651589
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0830-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N. C., 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276977
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N. C., 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2085543
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/69/0010-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C., 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 818",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275128
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0818-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C., 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274328
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0500-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N. C., 551",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278819
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0551-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N. C., 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277407
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0204-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2244,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.417,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43887693838521086
    },
    "sha256": "9b7eb1d2cc54bf65c5e4d28fb5f56817d40d6eebc9cf4df8f71e47e30e277ea5",
    "simhash": "1:ee264770cb48be15",
    "word_count": 399
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:42:03.891072+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. E. W. GATEWOOD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClarK, J.\nAppeals in forma \u2018pauperis in criminal actions are regulated by The Code, secs. 1235 and 1236. They can be allowed only during\u2019 term of court, and by the Judge; otherwise, the appeal \u201cis a nullity.\u201d State v. Dixon, 71 N. C., 204; State v. Gaylord, 85 N. C., 551. Neither the State nor the prosecutor can waive the requirements upon which leave to appeal in forma pauperis can be made: State v. Moore, 93 N. C., 500. \u201cTt is not a matter of discrotion with the Court, but it is the right of the State to have an appeal dismissed when there is a failure to- comply\u201d with the requirements of the law. State v. Duncan, 107 N. C., 818; State v. Payne, 93 N. C., 13.\n\u25a0 Appeals in forma pauperis were not originally allowed in civil causes, under The Code of Civil Procedure, at all (Mitchell v. Sloan, 69 N. C., 10), but were first provided for by chap. 60, Laws 1873-\u201974, (Clark\u2019s Code, sec. 553), under which they could only be allowed, as in criminal cases, by the Judge, and during the term (Stell v. Barham, 85 N. C., 88), but, by an amendment, chap. 161, Laws 1889, in civil causes, appeals in forma pauperis can be allowed by the Judge, either at term or on affidavit filed within five d\u00e1ys after court, or the Clerk may pass upon and allow such applications during term, or within ten days after its expiration.\nBut no amendment has been made in secs. 1235 and 1236 in regard to pauper appeals in criminal causes which are still allowable only at term time, and by the Judge. Indeed, chap. 192, Laws 1887, expressly requires the order to stay execution pending appeal to be made by the Judge.\nThe motion to dismiss must be allowed. State v. Harris, 114 N. C., 830.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClarK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Armjield & Williams, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Adams & Jerome, with the Attorney-General, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. E. W. GATEWOOD.\n(Decided December 12, 1899.)\nCriminal Action \u2014 Appeal.\nAppeals in forma pauperis, in criminal actions, are regulated by Tbe Code, secs. 1235 and 1236; they can be allowed only during term, and by the Judge.\nAppeal, in forma pauperis, from UNION County, by a defendant in a criminal action. There was a conviction, and judgment.\nThe defendant attempted to appeal. Appeal dismissed for reasons stated in the opinion.\nMessrs. Armjield & Williams, for appellant.\nMessrs. Adams & Jerome, with the Attorney-General, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0694-01",
  "first_page_order": 726,
  "last_page_order": 727
}