{
  "id": 8630390,
  "name": "STATE v. MINSON McLAMB",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McLamb",
  "decision_date": "1938-10-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "322",
  "last_page": "323",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 322"
    }
  ],
  "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": "208 N. C., 734",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616357
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0734-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625089
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0261-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N. C., 1204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654808
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/118/1204-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2355,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8355681364661158e-07,
      "percentile": 0.721354990194409
    },
    "sha256": "1c7b49098d4203a40ea91e8599db1b4e8fc8a08b8d14b235d2707ab8c4e71b04",
    "simhash": "1:605a50d3a420347a",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. MINSON McLAMB."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe Attorney-General lodged motion to dismiss the appeal under Rule 19 of this Court for reason that the record does not show the organization of the court below or the jurisdiction thereof. This motion may be well bottomed and warrant the dismissal of the appeal. However, where \u201ca serious question is presented,\u201d this Court has \u201csometimes not dismissed.\u201d S. v. May, 118 N. C., 1204. A question serious at least to the defendant is here presented, namely, whether he must serve sentence of six months imprisonment. Under the circumstances divulged upon the imperfect record we feel constrained to disallow the motion.\nIt was evidently intended to charge the defendant with a violation of ch. 228, Public Laws 1933, being \u201cAn act to amend chapter six of the Consolidated Statutes of North Carolina on Bastardy,\u201d N. C. Code of 1935 (Michie), sections 276 (a), et seq. The affidavit upon which the warrant was predicated fails to allege or charge that the defendant willfully neglected or refused to support and maintain his illegitimate child, the language of the affidavit being \u201cand has failed to support the same.\u201d The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, and we are constrained to hold that there was error in disallowing the motion. S. v. Cook, 207 N. C., 261; S. v. Tarlton, 208 N. C., 734. In fact, the Attorney-General on the argument confessed error in the event his motion to dismiss was disallowed.\nThe motion in arrest of judgment is allowed and the judgment below is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Wettach for the State.",
      "J. R. Barefoot and L. L. Levinson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. MINSON McLAMB.\n(Filed 19 October, 1938.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 77b, 80\u2014\nWhile failure of the record to show the organization of the court or the jurisdiction thereof warrants dismissal of the appeal, where a serious question is presented the Supreme Court in its discretion may disallow the motion to dismiss.\n2. Bastards \u00a7 3: Criminal Law \u00a7 56\u2014\nThe warrant in a prosecution under ch. 228, Public Laws of 1933 (Michie\u2019s Code, 276 [a]), must allege that the failure or refusal of defendant to support his illegitimate child was willful, and where it does not do so, defendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment should be allowed.\nAppeal by defendant from Harris, J., at June Term, 1938, of JohNstoN.\nReversed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Wettach for the State.\nJ. R. Barefoot and L. L. Levinson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0322-01",
  "first_page_order": 390,
  "last_page_order": 391
}