{
  "id": 8614409,
  "name": "STATE v. M. S. LEWIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lewis",
  "decision_date": "1927-11-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "620",
  "last_page": "621",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 620"
    }
  ],
  "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": "11 S. E., 360",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 758",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652153
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0758-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 S. E., 231",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 N. C., 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659029
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/164/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 U. S., 510",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        13076
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/268/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S. E., 183",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654524
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0591-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 3034,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.892875934665798e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8444550242118363
    },
    "sha256": "41689ec0c31211a58504eb879bf1d42e84f45da9f9269c1b6d5f0a48e18a0d4b",
    "simhash": "1:b6f736ce83ea5dea",
    "word_count": 533
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. M. S. LEWIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe judgment must be arrested on authority of what was said in S. v. Johnson, 188 N. C., 591, 125 S. E., 183, for that no crime is charged in the warrant upon which the defendant has been tried and convicted.\nIt is provided by C. S., 5758, with certain exemptions not now material, that every parent, guardian, or other person in the State having charge or control of a child between the ages of eight and fourteen years \u201cshall cause such child to attend school continuously for a period equal to the time which the public school in the district in which the child resides shall be in session.\u201d\nIt will be observed that the statute does not make the failure to cause the attendance of a child, between the ages mentioned, in the public school a crime, but the offense is defined as the failure on the part of the parent, guardian, or other person having control of such child, to cause said child to attend school continuously for a period equal to the time the public school of the district shall be in session. Indeed, it would be an infringement upon the rights of private schools to require that all children of school age shall attend one of the public schools of the district in which they reside. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S., 510.\nThe defect or omission appearing, as it does, on the face of the record, may be taken advantage of by motion in arrest of judgment. S. v. Jenkins, 164 N. C., 527, 80 S. E., 231; S. v. Baker, 106 N. C., 758, 11 S. E., 360.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash, for the State.",
      "H. 8. Williams and Z. A. Morris, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. M. S. LEWIS.\n(Filed 30 November, 1927.)\n1. Indictment \u2014 Defects \u2014 Schools \u2014 School Terms \u2014 Public Schools \u2014 Statutes \u2014 Criminal Law.\nAn indictment under the provisions of O. S., 5758, charging a parent with unlawfully and wilfully failing to cause his children, between the ages of 8 and 14 years, to attend the public schools of the district of his and the children\u2019s residence, as required by the statute, is defective in not observing the distinction that the parent, having the custody of his children, may have them attend private schools for the required period, and no conviction may be had under the charge set out in the indictment.\n2. Judgments \u2014 Arrest of Judgment \u2014 Indictment\u2014Defects in Indictment.\nWhere a fatal defect in the charge of an indictment for a criminal offense, appears upon its face, it may be taken advantage of by motion in arrest of judgment.\nAppeal by defendant from Schenck, J., at April Term, 1927, of CABARRUS.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon a warrant charging that the defendant \u201con or about the .... day of February, 1927, did unlawfully and wil-fully fail to cause Ms children, between the ages of 7 and 14 years, to attend public school in Kannapolis, in the district in which said children reside, as required by the statute in such cases made and provided,\u201d etc.\nFrom an adverse verdict and judgment pronounced thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash, for the State.\nH. 8. Williams and Z. A. Morris, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0620-01",
  "first_page_order": 688,
  "last_page_order": 689
}