{
  "id": 8697363,
  "name": "THE STATE vs. PETER R. SWINK et. al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Swink",
  "decision_date": "1839-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. & Bat. 358"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. 358"
    }
  ],
  "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": "4 Dev. Rep. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Dev. Rep. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 3318,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3407104043517595
    },
    "sha256": "c760ac65465a80a8f0ba4419d1fffedc571b0c4a3093634e619a1d0d66a4f05f",
    "simhash": "1:0f9fcf284d2e82dc",
    "word_count": 557
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:59:24.594429+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE vs. PETER R. SWINK et. al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin, Chief Justice.\nWe entertain the same opinion with His Honor, and think that judgment was properly given for the State. The case is fully within the principle of Jasper's case, 4 Dev. Rep. 323, which is, that a congregation of people collected together for the purpose of divine service, and engaged in the worship of Almighty God, are protected by the laws and constitution of this State, from wanton interrupt ion or disturbance. To entitle them to that protection, it is not requisite that they should be assembled in a church, chapel, or meeting-house; as in this State houses set apart by religious societies permanently for worship, are generally and indifferently called. That would be the rule, if the indictment were framed upon a statute protecting churches, or people worshiping in churches. But under the enlarged sense of the Constitution, \u201c a place of worship\u201d is constituted by the congregating of numerous worshipers thereat; for it is the right of conscience, the worship of the Supreme Being by his creatures, that is protected, and not merely the edifice. Our opinion therefore is, that although the assembly was at a private house \u2014 as, we think, must be intended upon this indictment \u2014the defendants were guilty of a gross misdemeanor in molesting the persons there engaged in offering their common prayers, or united in other acts of worship, to God. The Superior Court must consequently proceed to enforce the sentence.\nPer Curiam. Judgment to be affirmed;",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appeared for the defendants in this Court.",
      "The Attorney General for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE vs. PETER R. SWINK et. al.\nDec. 1839\nAn indictment will lie in this State for disturbing a congregation of people assembled for the purpose of divine service, and engaged in the worship of Almighty God, although it be not in a church, chapel, or meeting-house permanently set apart by a religious society for divine worship.\nThe case of the Slate vs. Jasper, 4 Dev. Rep. 323, approved.\nThe defendants were indicted at Rowan, on the last circuit, before his honor Judge Dick, in the following words, to wit:\n\u201c The jurors for the State upon their oath present, that on the twelfth day of August, 1839, in the county of Rowan aforesaid, a number of the citizens of said county were peaceably assembled at the house of Joseph Weant,in said county, for religious worship, and for the purpose of offering prayers to Almighty God:' and the said persons being then and there so assembled together for the purpose aforesaid, and actually engaged in divine worship, Peter R. Swink and Johnson E. Swink, well knowing the purpose of the said meeting, with force and arms, did then and there enter into said house, and by loud and abusive language, then and there, with profane oaths and violent actions, did disturb wantonly and intentionally the worship of the Almight,y/ and did disturb and molest the citizens then and there assembled for divine worship, to the great contempt of religion, to the common nuisance of the citizens of the State then and there being, and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nAfter conviction, the defendants moved in arrest of judgment, that the bill of indictment did not charge any indictable offence; but His Honor' overruled the motion, and pronounced judgment, from which the defendants appealed.\nNo counsel appeared for the defendants in this Court.\nThe Attorney General for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 479
}