{
  "id": 8628049,
  "name": "STATE v. HOSE HILDEBRAN and LOIS HILDEBRAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hildebran",
  "decision_date": "1931-12-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "780",
  "last_page": "781",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 780"
    }
  ],
  "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": "100 N. C., 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650862
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/100/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 885",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275401
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0885-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2803,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.2181438859945236e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2683359145649032
    },
    "sha256": "0ef737d5fd9c262dde39296aaa0ac5a8d203cc620472f8ad1690f2a13f007e7a",
    "simhash": "1:3461d6c2b00f4b75",
    "word_count": 461
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HOSE HILDEBRAN and LOIS HILDEBRAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Cueiam.\nTbe defendants were indicted and convicted of keeping a disorderly bouse. They appealed assigning certain grounds of error: (1) That tbe court refused their motion to dismiss tbe action as in tbe case of nonsuit; (2) that tbe court erroneously admitted evidence as to tbe general reputation of tbe bouse; (3) that tbe court committed error in tbe admission of evidence relating to occurrences on tbe premises which, it is contended, may have taken place more than two years preceding tbe finding of tbe bill of indictment; (4) that there was error in tbe admission and rejection of other evidence, and in tbe instructions given tbe jury.\nTbe evidence was amply sufficient to justify tbe court in submitting to tbe jury tbe question of tbe defendants\u2019 guilt. C. S., 4347. This statute authorizes the admission of evidence tending to show the lewd, dissolute, and boisterous conversation of the inmates and frequenters of the house, and specially provides that evidence of the general reputation or character of the house shall be admissible and competent.\nIf any of the occurrences referred to in the evidence happened more than two years prior to the finding of the bill of indictment as contended by the defendants, they were not for that reason incompetent. Some of the occurrences took place within the two-year period and evidence of those which happened prior to the bar of the statute of limitations would be competent \u00e1s corroborative. S. v. McDuffie, 107 N. C., 885; S. v. Guest, 100 N. C., 410. If the evidence was competent for any purpose it would have been erro;r to exclude it.\nWe have examined the record as to the admission and rejection of evidence and as to instructions given the jury and find no reversible error.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitl and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.",
      "D. L. Bussell and D. L. Bussell, Jr., for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HOSE HILDEBRAN and LOIS HILDEBRAN.\n(Filed 9 December, 1931.)\n1. Disorderly Hpuse A c \u2014 Evidence of general reputation and boisterous conversation of inmates is competent in prosecution for disorderly house.\nIn a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house evidence tending to show the lewd and boisterous conversation of the inmates and frequenters of the house, and evidence of the general reputation or character of the house is competent. O. S., 4347.\n2. Same \u2014 Evidence in this case of occurrence happening more than two years before indictment is held competent as corroborative evidence.\nIn a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house evidence of occurrences happening more than two years prior to the indictment is competent as corroborative of evidence of such occurrences happening within the two years.\nAppeal by defendants from Harwood, Special Judge, at March Term, 1931, of Bubjke.\nNo error.\nAttorney-General Brummitl and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.\nD. L. Bussell and D. L. Bussell, Jr., for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0780-01",
  "first_page_order": 854,
  "last_page_order": 855
}