{
  "id": 11276105,
  "name": "MORGAN J. THOMAS v. ABNER ALEXANDER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thomas v. Alexander",
  "decision_date": "1837-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "385",
  "last_page": "386",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Dev. & Bat. 385"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 N.C. 385"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Car. Law Repos. 249",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Car. Law Repos.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Car. Law Repos. 249",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Car. Law Repos.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2570,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.61,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.939702204251037e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46210512659232256
    },
    "sha256": "bea4ae572286a67f3698adaece457aa629050f2df354d187fc75259231f28f5b",
    "simhash": "1:c0a2e229bf2b6022",
    "word_count": 455
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:36.541924+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MORGAN J. THOMAS v. ABNER ALEXANDER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gaston, Judge.\nThe instructions of the judge, which were excepted to as erroneous, are set forth in the transcript, but it contains no statement of the evidence in reference to which the instructions were given. We might therefore, with propriety affirm the judgment, without examining the instructions, since it is the settled rule of this Court, (whatever inadvertencies to the contrary may have crept into some of its early decisions, when the precise limits of its jurisdiction were not ascertained,) to reverse no judgment because it is not shown to be right, but only when it is seen to have been wrong. Doe dem. Pickett v. Pickett, 1 Dev. 6. Whether a judgment be rendered erroneous because of a mistake of law in the charge of the judge, it js impossible to see, unless the bearing of that charge upon the facts testified, and the influence which it may have had on the verdict, shall be made to appear. But we have examined the instructions, and are of opinion lhat they are unobjectionable in. point of law, and in conformity to the principles heretofore laid down in the \" i i case of Dark v. Marsh, 2 Car. Law Repos. 249.\nThe case of Dark v. Marsh, 2 Car. Law Repost. 249, approved.\nThe Judgment below affirmed with costs.\nPer Cum am. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gaston, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appeared for either party in this Court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MORGAN J. THOMAS v. ABNER ALEXANDER.\n3. It is the settled rule of the Supreme Court, to affirm every judgment not seen to be erroneous.\n2. The harbouring and maintaining a runaway slave, to be within the act of \u00a11791, '(Rev. c. 335, s. 4,) must be secret.\nThis was an action upon the case, for harbouring a runaway slave, in violation of the act of 1791, (Rev. c. \u2022335, sec. 4.) Plea, not guilty.\nThere was no statement of the facts which occurred at the trial, certified in the record sent to this Court. But it appeared from the transcript, that his Honor Judge Toomer, had at Tyrrell, on the last Circuit, instructed the jury \u201c that the plaintiff should satisfy them that he was the owner of the slave, and that the defendant had har-boured or maintained him: that a construction had been given to the act of 1791, in the case of Dark v. Marsh, 2 Car. Law Repos. 249, which declared that \u2018 harbouring,\u2019 meant a concealment, and that the maintenance must be secret: that if they believed from the testimony, that the slave was in the possession of the defendant, or was at his plantation, and was not concealed nor secretly maintained there, the defendant was entitled to their verdict.\u201d The jury found for the defendant; and the plaintiff appealed.\nNo counsel appeared for either party in this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0385-01",
  "first_page_order": 385,
  "last_page_order": 386
}