{
  "id": 8653148,
  "name": "STATE v. TELFAIR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Telfair",
  "decision_date": "1905-09-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "555",
  "last_page": "556",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "139 N.C. 555"
    }
  ],
  "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": "108 N. C., 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650958
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/108/0412-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N. C., 880",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656707
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0880-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661807
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 747",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 278",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651627
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0478-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274578
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0562-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1884,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.4245537043438893e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8788077992191823
    },
    "sha256": "98213bf0d7feb0846c1a3b5d04ed1ec2b2320d88ceb3bb43f1d82aa67e202530",
    "simhash": "1:2d4e95e7eb10856b",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:57:29.236172+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. TELFAIR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThis case having been tried in October, 1904, should have been docketed here at last term. The defendant\u2019s excuse that the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d was not settled by the judge till after it was too late to docket at last term in time for the call of the district to which it belongs, is of no force. It was the duty of the appellant to docket the \u201crecord proper\u201d in apt time, and upon the call of the district have asked for a writ of certiorari to perfect the transcript. Pittman v. Kimberly, 92 N. C., 562; Porter v. Railroad, 106 N. C., 478, and numerous other cases cited in Parker v. Railroad, 121 N. C., p. 504, where it is said, repeating Burrell v. Hughes, 120 N. C., 278, \u201cthere are some matters settled, and this is one of them.\u201d Norwood v. Pratt, 124 N. C., 747, and cases cited; Worth v. Wilmington, 131 N. C., 533.\nTbe motion of tbe Attorney-General to dismiss tbe appeal must be allowed. Rule 16 of this court; State v. Deyton, 119 N. C., 880; Hinton v. Pritchard, 108 N. C., 412.\nAppeal Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "W. M. Person for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. TELFAIR.\n(Filed September 26, 1905).\nAppeal \u2014 Dismissal\u2014Docketing\u2014Duty of Appellant.\n1. A motion to dismiss an appeal will be allowed, where the ease was tried in October, 1904, and not docketed until the Fall Term, 1905; the appellant\u2019s excuse that the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d was not settled by the judge till after it was too late to docket at the Spring Term in time for the call of the district to which it belongs, being of no force.\n2. It is the duty of the appellant to docket the \u201crecord proper\u201d in apt time, and upon the call of the district have asked for a writ of certiorari to perfect the transcript.\nINDICTMENT against Eliza Telfair for resisting an officer, beard by Judge T. J. Shaw and a jury, at the October Term, 1904, of the Superior Court of Eeanklin County.\nRobert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nW. M. Person for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0555-01",
  "first_page_order": 593,
  "last_page_order": 594
}