{
  "id": 8658985,
  "name": "STATE v. HILLIARD BYNUM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bynum",
  "decision_date": "1921-10-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "821",
  "last_page": "821",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 N.C. 821"
    }
  ],
  "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": 156,
    "char_count": 1813,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "sha256": "13a1e14c48895e4fe3192abcb9cc1a97016d000f6f64a034c4d5be916f86def1",
    "simhash": "1:67a68199763745ae",
    "word_count": 309
  },
  "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. HILLIARD BYNUM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoee, J.\nTbe bill of indictment, tbe verdict, and judgment are formally correct, and tbe only exception to tbe validity of tbe trial being on a matter in the sound discretion of tbe court, we must affirm tbe judgment. Tbe defendant was without tbe benefit of counsel in tbe court below, and for tbe reasons stated, we are not at liberty to consider tbe positions so forcibly urged in bis behalf in tbe argument here.\nOn tbe record, while it was entirely proper to submit tbe case to tbe jury, we find very little in tbe testimony to justify a conviction of willful and corrupt perjury, and we deem it no impropriety to suggest that tbe facts as now presented to us would seem to justify a petition for executive clemency. We are confirmed in tbe view by tbe further fact that tbe careful, considerate, and able judge who tried tbe cause has imposed tbe minimum punishment allowed by tbe law for an offense of this kind.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoee, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General JSfash for the State.",
      "R. 0. Everett for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HILLIARD BYNUM.\n(Filed 26 October, 1921.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Weight of Evidence \u2014 Objections and Exceptions\u2014 Court\u2019s Discretion.\nWhere the indictment, verdict, and judgment appealed from are formally correct, objection that the trial court should have set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, is to the exercise of his sound discretion, and not reviewable.\nAppeal by defendant from Daniels J., at September Term, 1921, of OeANGE.\nIndictment for perjury. Defendant was convicted, and from sentence on tbe roads of Orange County for four months, appealed to this Court, assigning for error:\n1. For that bis Honor declined to set aside tbe verdict as contrary to tbe weight of tbe evidence.\n2. For that bis Honor entered judgment on tbe verdict.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General JSfash for the State.\nR. 0. Everett for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0821-01",
  "first_page_order": 891,
  "last_page_order": 891
}