{
  "id": 8617214,
  "name": "STATE v. SAM ANGEL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Angel",
  "decision_date": "1927-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "715",
  "last_page": "717",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 715"
    }
  ],
  "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": "124 S. E., 562",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 243",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653592
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0243-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 4680,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0149482259399343e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7446797091258989
    },
    "sha256": "f8fdd285ec6b28b0a9be979b2804930e8a7bf7c2e0773fbab1ef2f989557f0a2",
    "simhash": "1:dda0a3bcde2e03e3",
    "word_count": 826
  },
  "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. SAM ANGEL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nThe defendant was convicted at the March Term, 1927, of Yancey Superior Court, of receiving a number of turkeys, the property of one Martha King, knowing them to have been theretofore feloniously stolen or taken, in violation of O. S., 4250. From the judgment pronounced on the verdict, the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. By consent, and with the court\u2019s approval, the defendant was allowed 60 days within which to prepare and serve statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was allowed 60 days thereafter to file exceptions or counter statement of case.\nThe defendant served his statement of case on appeal before the expiration of the time agreed upon, and the solicitor, through counsel employed to assist him, served exceptions thereto 25 June, 1927, well within the time allowed the State. There is a conflict between counsel for the defendant and counsel appearing with the solicitor as to whether the defendant\u2019s statement of case on appeal was returned with the exceptions filed by the State. Defendant says that it was not and for this reason he was unable to send the case and exceptions to the judge, with request that he fix a time and place for settling the case before him. C. S., 644. The trial judge died on or about 29 August, 1927.\nIt is provided by C. S., 643, that if the appellant\u2019s case is \u201cnot returned with objections, within the time prescribed (ten days), it shall he deemed approved,\u201d and when filed in the clerk\u2019s office it becomes part of the record. Such statement apparently has never been filed in the clerk\u2019s office. So, taking the defendant\u2019s own view of the matter, it would seem that he is not entitled to either motion. If his statement of the case on appeal were \u201cdeemed approved\u201d under the statute, as he contends, because not returned with the objections filed by the State, then it follows that the failure to have the case docketed and ready for argument at the call of the Eighteenth District, the district from which the case comes, is due to his own laches and not to any fault of the court or its officers. Womble v. Gin Co., ante, 577.\nBut for another reason the defendant\u2019s application for certiorari must be denied. He shows no merit, or probable error committed on the trial. Certiorari is a discretionary writ, to be issued only for good or sufficient cause shown, and the party seeking it is required, not only to negative laches on his part in prosecuting the appeal, but also to show merit or that he has reasonable grounds for asking that the case be brought up and reviewed on appeal. Simply because a party has not appealed, or has lost his right of appeal, even through no fault of his own, is not sufficient to entitle him to a certiorari. \u201cA party is entitled to a writ of certiorari when \u2014 and only when \u2014 the failure to perfect the appeal is due to some error or act of the court or its officers, and not any fault or neglect of the party or his agent.\u201d Womble v. Gin Co., supra. Two things, therefore, should be made to appear on application for certiorari: First, diligence in prosecuting the appeal, except in cases where no appeal lies, when freedom from laches in applying for the writ should be shown; and, second, merit, or that probable error was committed on the hearing. S. v. Farmer, 188 N. C., 243, 124 S. E., 562.\nThe motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss at appellant\u2019s cost must be allowed. Defendant\u2019s motions for certiorari and for a new trial must be denied.\nCertiorari disallowed.\nNew trial denied.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u25a0Attorney-General Brum-mitt and, Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Charles Hutchins and B. W. Wilson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. SAM ANGEL.\n(Filed 14 December, 1927.)\nCertiorari \u2014 Appeal and Error \u2014 Courts\u2014Discretion \u2014 Laches \u2014 Merit\u2014 Statutes \u2014 Rules of Court \u2014 Dismissal.\nThe granting of a certiorari by the Supreme Court to bring up for review a case on appeal, lies within the discretion of the court upon a showing made by the appellant that he himself had complied with all the requirements to get the case up and docketed in time to be heard under the rules of court, that the defense was meritorious, and that he had not been guilty of any laches therein, but that the delay was attributable to the proper officials of the court in which the case had been tried. C. S., 643, 644.\nMotioNS by the defendant (1) for certiorari to have case brought up from Yancey County and heard on appeal, and (2) for a new trial for that the trial judge, Hon. Raymond Gr. Parker, died before settling the case on appeal, and counsel are not able to agree on a statement of the case.\nMotion by the State to docket and dismiss.\n\u25a0Attorney-General Brum-mitt and, Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nCharles Hutchins and B. W. Wilson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0715-01",
  "first_page_order": 783,
  "last_page_order": 785
}