{
  "id": 8625910,
  "name": "STATE v. HANNAH GOLDEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Golden",
  "decision_date": "1928-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "246",
  "last_page": "247",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 246"
    }
  ],
  "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": "192 N. C., 819",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627294
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0819-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1674,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20725455422304542
    },
    "sha256": "17808c26c09cb2e1f2081bcd6092d91038685ee01e159791b3012acb2f625518",
    "simhash": "1:813b8f5a77a4264c",
    "word_count": 281
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HANNAH GOLDEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oueiam.\nOn ber appeal to tbis Court, defendant relies solely upon ber exception to tbe refusal of tbe trial court to allow ber motion, at tbe close of all tbe evidence, for judgment as of nonsuit. 0. S., 4643. There was evidence tending to sbow tbe presence of intoxicating liquor in tbe bouse occupied by defendant, as charged in tbe warrant. Tbe controversy was as to whether tbe liquor was in ber possession or in tbe possession of men to whom she bad rented rooms, and who were present when tbe officers entered tbe bouse.\nStacy, G. J., not present, tbe Court, after bearing'the argument, and after considering tbe question presented by tbe appeal is evenly divided, two of its members being of tbe opinion that there was no error in tbe refusal of defendant\u2019s motion, and two of tbe contrary opinion.\nTbe defendant having failed to sustain ber assignment of error, on ber appeal to tbis Court, tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court must be affirmed. Poe v. Durham Public Service Co., 192 N. C., 819.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "John D. Slawter for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HANNAH GOLDEN.\n(Filed 31 October, 1928.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Review\u2014Burden of Showing Error.\nWhere on appeal the Supreme Court is equally divided, one Justice being absent, the\u2019 appellant having failed to show error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.\nAppeal by defendant from Shaw, J., at March Term, 1928, of Forsyth.\nAffirmed.\nCriminal action, in which defendant was tried upon a warrant charging her with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.\nFrom judgment on a verdict of guilty, defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nJohn D. Slawter for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0246-01",
  "first_page_order": 326,
  "last_page_order": 327
}