{
  "id": 8632747,
  "name": "STATE v. J. CLYDE RAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ray",
  "decision_date": "1934-06-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "736",
  "last_page": "737",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 N.C. 736"
    }
  ],
  "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": "204 N. C., 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621664
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0535-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S. E., 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S. E., 10",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 835",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255732,
        11255751
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0835-01",
        "/nc/172/0835-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 S. E., 170",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652783
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S. E., 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604956
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S. E., 602",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 704",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613476
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0704-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 S. E., 187",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653444
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0504-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S. E., 829",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606318
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0492-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 S. E., 116",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N. C., 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274344
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/110/0599-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 S. E., 85",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N. C., 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654110
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0533-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 3772,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.718148622684111e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7034892767879517
    },
    "sha256": "36002ac504d1bdf65456230377a9598ae315d0610d5bbbb0689016771e1ab28e",
    "simhash": "1:b4ef872c5a1525e7",
    "word_count": 657
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:02.537957+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. CLYDE RAY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nThe trial was held at the December Term, 1933, of Orange Superior Court, which convened 11 December. An appeal was prayed and notice duly given. Within fifteen days thereafter, to wit, on 23 December, the defendant made out and served his statement of case on appeal. On 6 January following, the solicitor prepared and served exceptions or objections to the defendant\u2019s statement. This was too late in the absence of any extension or waiver of time. 0. S., 643. None appears of record. Hence the defendant\u2019s statement became the statement of case on appeal. S. v. Humphrey, 186 N. C., 533, 120 S. E., 85; S. v. Price, 110 N. C., 599, 15 S. E., 116; Texas Co. v. Fuel Co., 199 N. C., 492, 154 S. E., 829; Barrus v. R. R., 121 N. C., 504, 28 S. E., 187; Carter v. Bryant, 199 N. C., 704, 155 S. E., 602.\nObjections to appellant\u2019s statement of case on appeal, not served within the time fixed by statute (10 days after service of appellant\u2019s case), by order of court, or by agreement of counsel, may be disregarded as unavailing or nugatory. Smith v. Smith, 199 N. C., 463, 154 S. E., 737; Cummings v. Hoffman, 113 N. C., 267, 18 S. E., 170.\nOf course, where there is a controversy as to whether the exceptions were served within the time fixed or allowed, or service within such time waived, it is the duty of the trial court to find the facts, hear motions and enter appropriate orders thereon. Smith v. Smith, supra; Holloman v. Holloman, 172 N. C., 835, 90 S. E., 10; Barrus v. R. R., supra. But here, there are no controverted facts. Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126.\nIt appears in appellant\u2019s statement of case on appeal that certain pleadings in civil actions brought against the defendant, involving the funds he is alleged to have embezzled, were offered in evidence, over objection, as proof of the facts admitted or alleged therein. This was in violation of the statute, O. S., 533, and entitles the defendant to a new trial. S. v. Dula, 204 N. C., 535. It is so ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.",
      "L. P. McLendon and S. M. Gattis for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. CLYDE RAY.\n(Filed 20 June, 1934.)\n1. Criminal Law L d \u2014 Service of objections and exceptions to defendant\u2019s statement of case must be made within time to be availing.\nWhere defendant duly serves his statement of case on appeal the service by the solicitor of exceptions and objections thereto after the expiration of ten days renders the service of such exceptions and objections nugatory in the absence of an extension of time or waiver, C. S., 643, and defendant\u2019s statement becomes the statement of case on appeal.\n2. Same \u2014 Duty of court to find facts where controversy exists as to time for service of exceptions to case on appeal.\nWhere there is a controversy as to whether exceptions to defendant\u2019s statement of case on appeal were served within the time fixed or allowed, or service within such time waived, it is the duty of the trial court to find the facts, hear motions and enter appropriate orders.\n3. Embezzlement B c \u2014 Admission in evidence of pleadings in civil actions against defendant in prosecution for embezzlement held error.\nIn a prosecution for embezzlement the admission in evidence over defendant\u2019s objection of pleadings in civil actions against defendant, involving the funds he is alleged to have embezzled, is erroneous. O. S., 533.\nAppeal by defendant from Devin, J., at December Term, 1933, of ORANGE.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with embezzlement.\nVerdict: \u201cGuilty thereof in the manner and form as charged in the bill of indictment.\u201d\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s prison for a term of three years.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.\nL. P. McLendon and S. M. Gattis for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0736-01",
  "first_page_order": 798,
  "last_page_order": 799
}