{
  "id": 8600905,
  "name": "STATE v. A. W. HARDIE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hardie",
  "decision_date": "1939-10-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "346",
  "last_page": "347",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "216 N.C. 346"
    }
  ],
  "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": "199 N. C., 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595555
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0135-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 3078,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2071271336668663
    },
    "sha256": "6683ab98f0e89ac2cfa10fc519562d33cf1dfd0ffc924d243b3a772f1e2cefcc",
    "simhash": "1:5ccef058ae51a7dc",
    "word_count": 512
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:30.134660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. A. W. HARDIE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Schenck, J.\nThe bill of indictment charges \u201cthat A. W. Hardie, . . .. on the 7th day of October, 1938, . . . unlawfully and willfully for pay practiced barbering . . . without first obtaining a certificate of registration, either as a registered apprentice or as a registered barber, from the State Board of Barber Examiners, . . The bill is drawn in accord with secs. 1 and 21, ch. 119, Public Laws 1929, as amended by sec. 6, ch. 138, Public Laws 1937. (Michie\u2019s N. C. Code of 1935, secs. 5003 [a] and 5003 [u].)\nThe State called but one witness, namely, one J. M. Cheek, who testified to the effect that he was a member of the North Carolina Board of Barber Examiners, that he saw the defendant on 8 October, 1938, and on various later dates, cutting the hair of and shaving various persons for pay, and that the defendant \u201cdid not have a license\u201d \u2014 that he knew that the defendant did \u201cnot have a license to practice barbering\u201d upon the dates mentioned. On cross-examination the witness testified that the defendant at one time \u201cheld a license to practice barbering,\u201d and on redirect examination that such license was revoked, \u201cand subsequent thereto the State Board did not issue to the defendant a new certificate as a barber.\u201d The date or time of the revocation of the license does not appear from the evidence.\nIt will be noted that the bill charges that the defendant practiced barbering without first obtaining a \u201ccertificate of registration\u201d and the proof is tbat the defendant practiced barbering without having a license. The term \u201ccertificate of registration\u201d is not once used in the testimony of the witness, the nearest approach to such use being in the last sentence thereof, when the witness stated that the defendant\u2019s license was revoked, \u201cand subsequent thereto the State Board did not issue to the defendant a new certificate as a barber.\u201d\nThe evidence does not support the charge \u2014 there is a fatal variance between the allegata and the probata. The crime for which the defendant was being tried being a statutory offense, the statute must be construed strictly in favor of the defendant and against the State. S. v. Heath, 199 N. C., 135. When this rule of construction is applied the proof of the lack of a license cannot be construed as proof of lack of a certificate of registration.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Schenck, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, for the State.",
      "Trivette & Holshouser for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. A. W. HARDIE.\n(Filed 18 October, 1939.)\n1. Barbers \u00a7 3; Indictment \u00a7 30\u2014\nThe indictment charged defendant with practicing barbering \u201cwithout first obtaining a certificate of registration.\u201d The evidence tended to show that defendant practiced barbering after his license had been revoked. Held: There is a fatal variance between the indictment and proof, proof of lack of a license not being proof of lack of a certificate of registration.\n3. Statutes \u00a7 8\u2014\nPenal statutes must be strictly construed.\nAppeal by defendant from Armstrong, J., at August Term, 1939, of Wilkes.\nReversed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, for the State.\nTrivette & Holshouser for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0346-01",
  "first_page_order": 412,
  "last_page_order": 413
}