{
  "id": 8656283,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN DUNN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dunn",
  "decision_date": "1912-04-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "654",
  "last_page": "654",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "158 N.C. 654"
    }
  ],
  "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": "139 N. C., 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N. C., 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253576
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/145/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1335,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.746149901732063e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4947915882354531
    },
    "sha256": "83c1b9d03cc01c786b0430a49934120e82ec01103b68895488ddaaecfb901f92",
    "simhash": "1:229ef612482030cd",
    "word_count": 219
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:05.014249+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN DUNN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\n\"We have examined all of the exceptions of the defendant, and find no error which entitles the defendant to a new trial.\nMany of the objections to evidence were entered as a matter of precaution, and in the earnest effort of counsel to protect the rights of the defendant, but they present no new questions requiring discussion.\n\u25a0 The indictment is fully sustained in S. v. Dowdy, 145 N. C., 432, and his Honor followed S. v. McIntyre, 139 N. C., 601, as to the effect of the statute, applicable to Cumberland County, making the possession of a certain quantity of intoxicating liquors prima facie \u00e9vidence of guilt.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Bichett and Assistant Attorney-General Gal-vert for the State.",
      "E. G. Davis for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN DUNN.\n(Filed 3 April, 1912.)\nIntoxicating Liquors \u2014 Possession\u2014Evidence\u2014Unlawful Sales.\nIn this ease, the possession of a certain quantity of intoxicating liquors by the defendant, as being prima facie evidence of unlawful sales by him, upheld. 8. v. Dowdy, 145 N. 0., 432; 8. v. McIntyre, 139 N. C., 601, cited and applied.\nAppeal by defendant front Garter, J., at November Term, 1911, of CuMBERLAND.\nThe defendant was convicted upon an indictment charging him with selling intoxicating liquors to persons unknown, and apjiealed from the judgment pronounced on the verdict.\nAttorney-General Bichett and Assistant Attorney-General Gal-vert for the State.\nE. G. Davis for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0654-01",
  "first_page_order": 698,
  "last_page_order": 698
}