{
  "id": 11273300,
  "name": "STATE v. AUGUSTUS HOLLY et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Holly",
  "decision_date": "1910-02-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "839",
  "last_page": "840",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 839"
    }
  ],
  "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": 153,
    "char_count": 1788,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "sha256": "50a63797aacf9a75fc71d49bb9b58587dc1d38156d9b7297cba16c304ce86f5c",
    "simhash": "1:ac09a6363d1de1e5",
    "word_count": 300
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. AUGUSTUS HOLLY et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nTbe only question discussed in tbe brief of defendants\u2019 counsel relates to the sufficiency of tbe evidence to convict of tbe crime created by tbe statute.\nWe agree with counsel tbat tbe mere employment of one who \u25a0is under contract to serve another is not a violation of tbe statute. It must be shown that the defendant did something to entice, persuade or procure the servant to leave his master.\nAfter a careful examination of the evidence a majority of the Court are of opinion that the evidence discloses some facts and circumstances tending to prove that these defendants induced, enticed and assisted Outlaw to leave his employer and enter into their service under conditions which make their conduct a violation of the statute, and that the court was warranted in submitting the question to the jury.\nThe judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General and W. M. Bond for plaintiff.",
      "W. D. Pruden and 8. B. Shepherd for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. AUGUSTUS HOLLY et als.\n(Filed 25 February, 1910.)\nMaster and Servant \u2014 Unlawful Enticing Servant \u2014 Statutory Offense.\nIn order to constitute the offense prescribed by Revisal, sec. 3365, it must be something more than the mere employment of a servant or employee who is under contract to serve another. It must be shown that defendant enticed, persuaded or procured the servant to leave his master; but as in this ease there was evidence tending to show this, it was properly submitted to the jury.\nAppeal by defendants from Ward, J., at Fall Term, 1909, of Ohowai\u00ed.\nIndictment for procuring and enticing a servant or employee to unlawfully leave his employer under section 3365 of the Re-visal. Nol. pros, was entered as to defendant Outlaw. There was a verdict of guilty as to defendants Augustus Holly and George Holly, who1 appealed.\nAttorney-General and W. M. Bond for plaintiff.\nW. D. Pruden and 8. B. Shepherd for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0839-01",
  "first_page_order": 887,
  "last_page_order": 888
}