{
  "id": 8662182,
  "name": "STATE v. PRESS McRAE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McRae",
  "decision_date": "1915-11-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "712",
  "last_page": "713",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "170 N.C. 712"
    }
  ],
  "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": "154 N. C., 611",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653142
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0611-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N. C., 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 299,
    "char_count": 4837,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.786716220545107e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4566988268428005
    },
    "sha256": "fd34e37ed65817b2613e9d15d4e1feb573101a66128ccdec7aaff45ff60937ec",
    "simhash": "1:7c7c06664d26c5d9",
    "word_count": 820
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:17.272665+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. PRESS McRAE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "AlleN, J.\nThe statute (Revisal, 3434 a) does not make it indictable to obtain entertainment at a private house without paying therefor and with intent to defraud. The offense condemned, pertinent to this appeal, is obtaining any \u201clodging, food, or accommodation at an inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof,\u201d and the question is presented as to whether one who has not taken out a license to keep a boarding-house, and who does not hold out her house as a place for the entertainment of the public, but who has on one occasion received one of the public for hire, is the keeper of a boarding-house. We think not.\n' The maxim Noscitur a sociis, which in ordinary speech means that you may know one by the company he keeps, is frequently resorted to in the interpretation of doubtful words in a statute, and when applied here, we find boarding-houses associated with inns and lodging-houses, well known places of public entertainment, and the words \u201cproprietor\u201d and \u201cmanager\u201d are not usually used as descriptive of the owner of a private dwelling.\nThe language of the statute, therefore, strongly implies that only such places as are held out for the entertainment of the public are included within its protection, and the definition of a keeper of a boarding-house by Associate Justice Hoke in Holstein v. Phillips, 146 N. C., 370, as \u201cone who reserves the right to select and choose his patrons, and takes them only by special arrangement, and usually for a definite time,\u201d excludes the idea that the entertainment of one .person without the purpose or desire to entertain others comes within the description.\nIn Cody v. McDowell, 1 Lans. (N. Y.), 484, the Court, speaking to this question, says: \u201cA boarding-house is as well known and as distinguishable from every other house in every city, village, and the country as an inn or tavern. It is a house where the business of keeping boarders generally is carried on and which is held out by the owner or keeper as a place where boarders are kept.\u201d\nIn that case it was held, where the plaintiff, who wa.s a housekeeper but not accustomed to taking persons to board, received the defendant and his family, upon the defendant\u2019s application, into his house for an indefinite time, with the general understanding that the plaintiff was to be compensated for board and accommodation, that the plaintiff was not a boarding-house keeper. A private housekeeper who entertains a boarder for hire in a single instance is not a boarding-house keeper. A boarding-house is a gwosi-public house where boarders are generally and habitually kept, and which is held out and known as a place of entertainment of that kind.\n\u201cA boarding-house is a house where the business of keeping boarders generally is carried on and which is held out by the owner or keeper as a place where boarders are kept.\u201d 4 A. and E., 590.\nThere is also another fatal objection to maintaining the prosecution, and that is that a failure to pay is not sufficient evidence of an intent to defraud. S. v. Griffin, 154 N. C., 611.\nEeversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "AlleN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Biclcett and Assistant Attorney-General Calvert for the State.",
      "H. II. McLendon for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. PRESS McRAE.\n(Filed 24 November, 1915.)\nCriminal Law \u2014 '\u201cBoard!ng'-ho\u00ab ses\u201d \u2014 Proprietor or Manager \u2014 Interpretation o\u00ed Statutes.\n\u00d3ne who has not been licensed to keep a boarding-house, and who does not hold his place out as such, but who has received a boarder in his home, for pay, is not the keeper of a boarding-house; and this case does not fall within the intent and meaning of the Revisal, sec. 3434a, making it an offense for one to obtain any \u201clodging, food, or accommodation at an inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof.\u201d The word boardinghouse, being used in connection with inns, etc., indicates that its use as such must be of the same general character, and the words \u201cproprietor or manager\u201d are not descriptive of the owner of a private dwelling.\nAppeal by defendant from Devin, J., at April Term, 1915, of Anson.\nThe defendant is indicted for a violation of section 3434 a of the Revisal, in that he obtained board without paying therefor, with intent to defraud.\nThe prosecutrix testified that the defendant boarded with her nine weeks, promising to pay her $2.SO per week, and that he left without paying her; that she lived a mile in the country and had not taken out a license to keep a boarding-house, and that she had never entertained any other person as a boarder.\nAt the conclusion of the evidence the defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit, which was overruled, and the defendant excepted.\nThere was a verdict of guilty, and from the judgment pronounced thereon the defendant appeals.\nAttorney-General Biclcett and Assistant Attorney-General Calvert for the State.\nH. II. McLendon for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0712-01",
  "first_page_order": 774,
  "last_page_order": 775
}