{
  "id": 11276175,
  "name": "The State v. Carter Jones",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1828-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "48",
  "last_page": "49",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Dev. 48"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. 48"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2267,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.396,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.318742955078255e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27195523754473716
    },
    "sha256": "8055c056cb75e35cb080ce68e8b2ba9a47f23a99df414fe135fbb9640bbd7a73",
    "simhash": "1:7ef4ae71012fc8ae",
    "word_count": 413
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:37.349944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The State v. Carter Jones."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hall, Judge.\nFrom the two acts of Assembly red ted in the case of the State v. Isaac, decided at this term, (vide the last case) the Defendant Jones, the owner of the slave, is liable for the costs of prosecution against him, because if the slave had been a free man, his estate would be liable.\nWith respect to the fee of \u00a35 for executing Charles, if. is included I think in the costs of prosecution. In the act of 1797 {Rev. ch. 484,) amongst other fees to which the Sheriff is entitled for apprehending and carrying cri min\u00e1is to jail, ten shillings is allowed for carrying any sentence or decree of the Court into execution, where the convict is tobe corporally punished, and \u00a35 for the cxe-cution and decent burial of any one.\nDec. 1828.\nr-, , ... , r ,, , . By the same act, provision is made for the payment of sucli fees by the State, provided they cannot he got out of the estate, or body of the prisoner. But it declai\u2019es that no such claim shall be allowed, until a fieri facias shall have issued to the County in which the prisoner may be supposed to have owned property, and the Sheriffs return thereon, that nothing was to be found, nor until a capias ad satisfaciendum shall have issued, and if it was executed upon the body of the criminal, not until he discharged himself by taking the oath of insolvency. From this act it appears that the estate of the slave would be liable in case he was a free man, it fol lows of course that his owner is so.\nPer Curiam: \u2014 Let the judgment be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hall, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Badger, for the Appellant.",
      "R. U. Jones, Attorney-General, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The State v. Carter Jones.\nFrom Northampton.\nAn owner who has notice of a capital charge against his slave, in case of a conviction, is not only bound to pay the prison fees, but also the fee allowed by the act of 1797, {Rev. ch. 484) for carrying1 the sentence into execution.\nNegro Charles, the property of the Defendant, had been convicted of a rape, and executed.\nA question was made before his honor Judge Norwood. on the last circuit, whether the Defendant, as the owner of the slave, was liable to his prison charges, and to the lee of ten dollars allowed for carrying.,the sentence o\u00ed death into execution. Both questions were decided for the State, and the Defendant appealed.\nBadger, for the Appellant.\nR. U. Jones, Attorney-General, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0048-01",
  "first_page_order": 64,
  "last_page_order": 65
}