{
  "id": 8629026,
  "name": "STATE v. WILL ELMORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Elmore",
  "decision_date": "1931-12-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "842",
  "last_page": "843",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 842"
    }
  ],
  "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": "27 S. E., 78",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659996
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0608-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 S. E., 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 N. C., 667",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659238
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/133/0667-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622786
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0009-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1222,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20730783918290216
    },
    "sha256": "44a93eacba32d3569ab7fa3d540ffbdb5b4dc7f121d30cb0d8ccd2f261dda075",
    "simhash": "1:9ad331bf6cb80d8c",
    "word_count": 210
  },
  "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. WILL ELMORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oueiam.\nThe case is controlled by the decision in S. v. Best, 202 N. C., 9, and S. v. Adams, 133 N. C., 667, 45 S. E., 553.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.",
      "George B. Patton and Edwards & Leatherwood for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILL ELMORE.\n(Filed 23 December, 1931.)\nAppeal by defendant from Harding, J., at August-September Term, 1931, of MacoN.\nCriminal' prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant, and another, (1) with breaking and entering a garage, (2) with the larceny of \u201cone Model T, 1927, Ford automobile,\u201d valued at $200, the property of E. O. Rickman, and (3) with receiving said automobile knowing it to have been feloniously stolen or taken in violation of C. S., 4250.\nTbe case was submitted to the jury on the presumption that: \u201cWhen goods are stolen, one found in possession so soon thereafter that he could not have reasonably got the possession unless he had stolen them himself, the law presumes he was the thief.\u201d 8. v. Graves, 72 N. 0., 482; 8. v. McRae, 120 N. C., 608, 27 S. E., 78.\nVerdict: \u201cG-uilty on the third count in the bill of indictment.\u201d\nJudgment: Eight months on the roads.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.\nGeorge B. Patton and Edwards & Leatherwood for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0842-01",
  "first_page_order": 916,
  "last_page_order": 917
}