{
  "id": 8661639,
  "name": "STATE v. ANDERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Anderson",
  "decision_date": "1901-11-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "521",
  "last_page": "522",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. 521"
    }
  ],
  "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": "120 N. C., 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659721
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0580-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C., 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274783
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0585-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2019,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1618122020066767e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5842135970089376
    },
    "sha256": "bd9fa3dcce9a5a331ac9bb5f3ea59954523e48f9e5c7639788542e268cf49c39",
    "simhash": "1:5db6e2397c50576f",
    "word_count": 356
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:26.986874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ANDERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eueches, C. J.\nThis is an indictment for carrying concealed weapons, under section 1005 of The Code, in which the jury found the following special verdict: \u201cThat the defendant was an employee of the Randleman Manufacturing Company, as a night watchman, and on the 30th of March, 1901, was in. discharge of his duty as such, and carried a .pistol concealed about his person on the premises of the company.\u201d Upon this verdict, the Court held that the defendant was not guilty, and the State appealed.\nThe statute makes it a criminal offense to carry a pistol concealed about one\u2019s person, \u201cexcept when on his own premises.\u201d \u201cAnd if anyone, not being on his own land, shall have about his person any such deadly weapon, such possession shall be prima facie evidence of concealment thereof.\u201d So it is seen that the statute uses the word \u201cpremises\u201d when it describes the offense, and-the word \u201cland\u201d when it makes the fact of carrying the weapon prima facie evidence of concealment. But it is held in State v. Perry, 93 N. C., 585, that one in possession as \u201can agent or overseer, or anyone else who is vested with the right of dominion, is the owner within the meaning of the statute.\u201d This opinion seems to sustain the opinion and judgment of-the Court below. \u25a0 And we do .not think that the opinion in the case of State v. Perry, 120 N. C., 580, is in conflict with the definition given in State v. Terry, 93 N. C., 585, as above stated.\nThe judgment must be\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eueches, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown Shepherd, for B. D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ANDERSON.\n(Filed November 5, 1901.)\nCARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS \u2014 The Code, Sec. 1005.\nA private night watchman is not guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, under The Code, Sec. 1005, while on duty upon the premises he is employed\u2019to watch.\nINDICTMENT against C. Anderson, heard by Judge A. L. Goble and a jury, at July Term,' 1901, of the Superior Court of RaNdolph County. Erom a verdict of not guilty on a special verdict, tbe State appealed.\nBrown Shepherd, for B. D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0521-01",
  "first_page_order": 555,
  "last_page_order": 556
}