{
  "id": 2221509,
  "name": "STATE v. HOWARD WELLS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wells",
  "decision_date": "1936-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 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": "163 S. E., 748",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628027
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S. E., 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622578,
        8597916
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0865-03",
        "/nc/203/0013-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 131,
    "char_count": 1332,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.07757730276938926
    },
    "sha256": "2f3c9e6c32356d08adb1a2e7c090551aca9204a227ac770fbdd181d51b375138",
    "simhash": "1:ec0a351ebe0c39dd",
    "word_count": 222
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:34:31.527681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HOWARD WELLS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nNo reversible error has been made to appear in the trial of the cause. The exception to the judgment does not seem to have been brought forward and discussed in appellant\u2019s brief. Hence, it is deemed to be abandoned. S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737: \u201cExceptions in the record not set out in appellant\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.\u201d Rule 28, Rules of Practice in Supreme Court; In re Beard, 202 N. C., 661, 163 S. E., 748.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Aihen for the State.",
      "Phin Horton, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HOWARD WELLS.\n(Filed 22 January, 1936.)\nCriminal Law L d\u2014\nExceptions not brought forward and discussed in appellant\u2019s brief will be deemed abandoned. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 28.\nAppeal by defendant from Rousseau, J., at October Term, 1935, of Forsyth.\nCriminal prosecution, tried upon indictment charging the defendant, in five different counts, with violations of the prohibition laws.\nYerdict: \u201cGuilty of possession and transporting intoxicating liquors.\u201d\nJudgment: On the count for transporting, 12 months on the roads; on the count for possession, 2 years on the roads, to be suspended for five years on good behavior.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Aihen for the State.\nPhin Horton, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-02",
  "first_page_order": 420,
  "last_page_order": 421
}