{
  "id": 8613897,
  "name": "STATE v. D. M. BYRD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Byrd",
  "decision_date": "1933-02-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "162",
  "last_page": "162",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 162"
    }
  ],
  "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": "198 N. C., 522",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613811
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0522-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 120,
    "char_count": 1175,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3145585793119803e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6251582621226179
    },
    "sha256": "1ed4c92025c134a2b0851a24b713b7b04da6785c863a8bb4fe8f9e44e03acf26",
    "simhash": "1:34b69767c8309a49",
    "word_count": 204
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. D. M. BYRD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "AdaMS, J.\nThe defendant drew two checks on the Bank of Spruce Pine payable to the order of the Climax Manufacturing Company. Both checks were post-dated \u2014 that is, the date on each check was later than the real date of its issue: The question is whether the defendant is guilty of giving a worthless check in violation of section 4283(a) of the Consolidated Statutes.\nThe trial court instructed the jury to convict the defendant if they believed the evidence and found beyond a reasonable doubt that he had given the checks, and that it made no difference whether the checks were or were not post-dated.\nThey were given for a past account and if post-dated did not import criminal liability. S. v. Crawford, 198 N. C., 522. For error in the instruction the defendant is entitled to a new trial.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "AdaMS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.",
      "Berry & Greene for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. D. M. BYRD.\n(Filed 8 February, 1933.)\nBills and Notes I f\u2014\nA post-dated check for a past account does not come within provisions of the \u201cbad-check law.\u201d O. S., 4283(a).\nAppeal by defendant from Moore, J., at April Term, 1932, of Mitchell.\nNew trial.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.\nBerry & Greene for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0162-01",
  "first_page_order": 228,
  "last_page_order": 228
}