{
  "id": 8658623,
  "name": "STATE v. CLEM BRADSHAW",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bradshaw",
  "decision_date": "1921-10-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "769",
  "last_page": "770",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 N.C. 769"
    }
  ],
  "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": 138,
    "char_count": 1826,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.429,
    "sha256": "7165c6110bc5e7eb9b3a0676759848e6ebd002a0b3376ebc17efa89fbe768b4f",
    "simhash": "1:71bd5c2bcb838449",
    "word_count": 289
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:57:09.696199+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CLEM BRADSHAW."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Feu Cueiam.\nTbe following is tbe whole of tbe State\u2019s brief:\n\u201cTbe defendant was tried and convicted at tbe June Term, 1921, of tbe Alamance Superior Court, Hon. J. Lloyd Horton presiding, of prostitution as defined in sections 4357 et seq., of tbe Consolidated Statutes.\n\u201cWithout analyzing tbe evidence, we think it is not sufficient to justify tbe verdict. It does not, we submit, bring defendant within tbe plain definition of prostitution or of assignation as contained in section 4357.\u201d\nFor tbe reasons assigned by tbe Attorney-General, we think tbe defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Feu Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "No brief filed on behalf of defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CLEM BRADSHAW.\n(Filed 26 October, 1921.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Criminal Law \u2014 Prostitution\u2014Evidence\u2014Motions\u2014 Nonsuit \u2014 Statutes.\nOn this appeal from conviction for the defendant\u2019s having engaged in immoral prostitution and unlawfully using a building for like purpose in violation of C. S., 4357 et seq., the judgment is reversed for the lack of evidence to justify the verdict, and the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit under the Mason Act, ch. 73, Laws 1913,-should have been granted.\nAppeal by defendant from Horton, J., at June Special Term, 1921, of ALAMANCE.\nCriminal prosecution, tried upon an indictment charging the defendant with having engaged in immoral prostitution, and unlawfully using a building for like purpose, in violation of the statute.\nTbe defendant offered no evidence, but moved to dismiss tbe action or for judgment as of nonsuit under tbe Mason Act, chapter 73, Public Laws 1913. Motion overruled, and defendant excepted.\nFrom a verdict of guilty, and judgment of 9 months on tbe roads pronounced thereon, tbe defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nNo brief filed on behalf of defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0769-01",
  "first_page_order": 839,
  "last_page_order": 840
}