{
  "id": 8621952,
  "name": "STATE v. MRS. J. E. HENDERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Henderson",
  "decision_date": "1940-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "513",
  "last_page": "514",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "218 N.C. 513"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2042,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0799072122363311e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5622264077944312
    },
    "sha256": "24d9c991c949cc8a82579e991e05d8316c449dc0afc7a21730cc45bab0c70bd5",
    "simhash": "1:9f078932ca74205f",
    "word_count": 329
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:12.547739+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. MRS. J. E. HENDERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DeviN, J.\nThe defendant was charged in the bill with the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale and with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor under the statute. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant operated a tavern or road-house known as \u201cMa\u2019s Tavern\u201d; that the sheriff and his deputies, upon a search of the premises, found 58 pints of whiskey concealed in a trap; that the defend^ ant, who was not present at the time of the search, stated afterwards that \u201cselling a little liquor was the worst thing she ever did.\u201d The defendant offered no evidence. There was general verdict of guilty.\nTbe defendant assigns as error tbe ruling of tbe trial judge in permitting a witness to testify that defendant\u2019s tavern was a public place where people went to dance and eat. This does not afford sufficient ground upon wbicb to predicate prejudicial error.\nTbe defendant\u2019s exception to tbe judge\u2019s charge cannot be sustained. Tbe excerpt therefrom, to wbicb exception was noted, was contained in tbe recitation of tbe State\u2019s contentions, and, considered contextually, was insufficient to justify serious complaint. All other exceptions were abandoned. There was evidence sufficient to support tbe verdict, and in tbe trial we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DeviN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.",
      "Ernest B. Warren and P. G. Fron\u00e9berger for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. MRS. J. E. HENDERSON.\n(Filed 20 November, 1940.)\n1. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 8c\u2014\nIn this prosecution for illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, the admission of testimony that defendant\u2019s tavern was a public place where people went to dance and eat is helcL not to constitute prejudicial error.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 81c\u2014\nAn excerpt from a portion of the judge\u2019s statement of the State\u2019s contentions will not be held for prejudicial error1 when it is apparent that considering the charge contextually, defendant was not prejudiced thereby.\nAppeal by defendant from Sinle, J., at April Term, 1940, of G-astoN.\nNo error.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.\nErnest B. Warren and P. G. Fron\u00e9berger for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0513-01",
  "first_page_order": 581,
  "last_page_order": 582
}