{
  "id": 8629869,
  "name": "STATE v. J. E. GILL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gill",
  "decision_date": "1928-04-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "425",
  "last_page": "427",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 425"
    }
  ],
  "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": "190 N. C., 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0768-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655840
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0275-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 4663,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20732502165184147
    },
    "sha256": "129a08f7be78bcd2c12a2fbaa949458dcdb6386e47b783a69a66144bb58ac95e",
    "simhash": "1:2b128fe021a6d44a",
    "word_count": 823
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. E. GILL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brogden, J.\nThe State offered in evidence a certified copy of the ordinance in controversy, the certificate being as follows: \u201cC. M. Kavanough, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the mayor of the town of Zebulon; that the above is true copy of an ordinance of the town of Zebulon, the same being under the head of 'Miscellaneous Preventive Ordinances\u2019 is section 15 thereof; that said ordinance was in force at the time of the alleged violation of the same by J. E. Gill; that the same has been in force since 7 June, 1926.\u201d The defendant contended that the ordinance had not been properly enacted by the commissioners of the town of Zebulon and offered the minutes of the meeting of the board of commissioners of the town of Zebulon, held on 7 June, 1927, which was the date when the purported ordinances appeared to have been adopted. The minutes of said meeting failed to disclose any reference whatever to the ordinance. C. S., 1750, provides: \u201cIn the trial of appeals from mayors\u2019 courts, when the offense charged is the violation of a town ordinance, a copy of the ordinance alleged to have been violated, certified by the mayor, shall be prima facie evidence of the existence of snob ordinance.\u201d The affidavit of the mayor states that the ordinance bad been in force since 7 June, 1926. Does the fact that the minutes of the meeting of the board of commissioners on 7 June, 1926, do not disclose any reference to said ordinance or the adoption thereof, rebut the prima facie evidence of the existence of the ordinance created by C. S., 1750? Adams, J., in White v. Hines, 182 N. C., 275, said: \u201cA prima facie case or evidence is that which his received or continues until the contrary is shown. It is such as in judgment of law is sufficient to establish the fact, and if not rebutted remains sufficient for the purpose.\u201d However, \u201ca prima facie case, or prima facie evidence, does not change the burden of proof. It only stands until its weight is met by evidence to the contrary. The opposing party, however, is not required as a matter of law to offer evidence in reply. He may take the risk of an adverse verdict if be fail to do so. The case is carried to the jury on a prima facie showing and it is for them to say whether or not the crucial and necessary facts have been established.\u201d Stacy, J., in Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524.\nA valid ordinance must be duly passed or enacted by the governing body when such governing body is acting in its official capacity. The minutes of the meeting of 7 June, 1926, fail to show the adoption of the ordinance on that particular date, but the minutes of that particular meeting are not conclusive upon the question \u201cof the existence of such ordinance\u201d as specified by C. S., 1750. The determination of this question was the function of the jury. We therefore conclude that the judgment is correct. S. v. Abernethy, 190 N. C., 768.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brogden, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. L. Swain for defendant.",
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for Stale."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. E. GILL.\n(Filed 4 April, 1928.)\n1. Criminal Law \u2014 Violation pf City Ordinance \u2014 Burden of Proving Existence of Ordinance.\nWhere the defendant is charged with violating a city ordinance it must .be shown for conviction that the ordinance had been duly passed or enacted by the governing body of the town, and was in existence at the time in question.\n2. Same \u2014 Prima Facie Case.\nOn appeal from the mayor\u2019s court convicting the defendant of violating an ordinance of the town, the certificate of the mayor of the existence of the ordinance at the time makes out a prima facie case of its existence under the provisions of our statute, O. S., 1750.\n3. Same \u2014 Evidence Sufficient to Rebut \u2014 Question fox- Jury.\nWhen the defendant, convicted of the violation of a city ordinance, on appeal introduces in evidence the minutes of the meeting of the governing authoi\u2019ities of the town, which does not show its passage on a certain date, it is not conclusive that the ordinance had not been passed, at some other time, against the statutory certificate of the mayor that it was in existence at the time of the defendant\u2019s conviction, and the question is determined by the verdict of the jury.\nCbimiNal action before Sinclair, J., at September Term, 1927, of Wake.\nThe defendant was tried in recorder\u2019s court in the town of Zebulon for violation of \u201cMiscellaneous Preventive Ordinance No. 15\u201d for tbat the defendant did not display auto tags of the town of Zebulon as required by said ordinance. The defendant appealed from the judgment of recorder\u2019s court to the Superior Court of Wake County and was again convicted. He appealed, assigning error.\nH. L. Swain for defendant.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for Stale."
  },
  "file_name": "0425-01",
  "first_page_order": 497,
  "last_page_order": 499
}