{
  "id": 8655399,
  "name": "STATE v. GEORGE HUGHES and LESLIE BEST",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hughes",
  "decision_date": "1925-03-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "831",
  "last_page": "831",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 N.C. 831"
    }
  ],
  "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": 105,
    "char_count": 1262,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "sha256": "9042a7d090e480088cfd74c54ee966a2dc8672125b56f15880338428d3aed346",
    "simhash": "1:b323f51532a8c0df",
    "word_count": 209
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:40:32.095485+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. GEORGE HUGHES and LESLIE BEST."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe only assignment of error is based upon defendants\u2019 exception to the refusal of the court' to allow their motion, \u25a0 at the close of all the evidence, for judgment of nonsuit. C. S., 4643. We do not deem it necessary to set out the evidence, which is stated in the case on appeal. The testimony of the witness, if found by the jury to be true, was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of the indictment. There was no error in the refusal of defendants\u2019 motion. No other error is assigned by defendants. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. Upon the whole record there is\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Sutton & Green for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. GEORGE HUGHES and LESLIE BEST.\n(Filed 11 March, 1925.)\nAppeal by .defendants from Daniels, J., at October Term, 1924, of Lenoir.\nDefendants were convicted upon an indictment charging them with store-breaking, larceny and receiving. At close of all the evidence, defendants renewed their motion, first made at the close of the evidence for the State, for judgment of nonsuit. Defendants excepted to the refusal of his Honor to allow their motion, and assign same as error. From judgment upon the verdict, defendants appealed.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nSutton & Green for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0831-01",
  "first_page_order": 909,
  "last_page_order": 909
}