{
  "id": 8620284,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES H. PRIDGEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pridgen",
  "decision_date": "1927-10-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "795",
  "last_page": "796",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 795"
    }
  ],
  "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": "177 N. C., 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655023
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/177/0585-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 694",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272101
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0694-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1813,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3567281335707217
    },
    "sha256": "8b111b17f0bffd71fc9347fef05966c3723c75f1ec2cf965c2418c430a527c0b",
    "simhash": "1:e737491e01c4e04e",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "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. JAMES H. PRIDGEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThere was no error in tbe refusal of tbe court to dismiss tbe action, upon defendant\u2019s motion, at tbe close of tbe evidence. O. S., 4643. Tbe evidence was properly submitted to tbe jury; it is sufficient as a matter of law to support tbe verdict.\nTwo of tbe State\u2019s witnesses, after defendant bad testified as a witness in bis own behalf, as shown by tbe record, in response to questions as to bis general character, testified tbat they beard tbat defendant is a notorious blind tiger. Defendant objected to these statements of tbe witnesses. No motion, however, was made to strike them from tbe record.\nA reasonable interpretation of tbe record shows tbat each of tbe witnesses bad qualified as a character witness before be testified tbat be bad beard that defendant is a notorious blind tiger. S. v. Mills, 184 N. C., 694, is therefore not applicable.\nIn S. v. Butler, 177 N. C., 585, it is said: \u201cIt was open to tbe witness, having stated that be knew tbe defendant\u2019s general character, to qualify and explain bis answer as to what it was by saying that it was bad for selling liquor.\u201d\nTbe record in this case does not present tbe questions decided in S. v. Mills, supra. Upon tbe record we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "J. Paul Frizzelle and Buhe Lamb for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES H. PRIDGEN.\n(Filed 5 October, 1927.)\nAppeal by defendant from Grammer, J., at June Term, 1927, of GeeeNE.\nNo error.\nDefendant was convicted in tbe county court of Greene County upon a warrant charging tbat be bad violated tbe prohibition law. From judgment upon bis conviction be appealed to tbe Superior Court.\nUpon bis trial in tbe Superior Court there was a verdict of guilty. From judgment upon tbe verdict defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nJ. Paul Frizzelle and Buhe Lamb for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0795-01",
  "first_page_order": 863,
  "last_page_order": 864
}