{
  "id": 8598952,
  "name": "STATE v. RAY DRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dry",
  "decision_date": "1944-04-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "234",
  "last_page": "235",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "224 N.C. 234"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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": "174 S. E., 447",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 598",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631947
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0598-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1324,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4366940457637005e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6523596549451338
    },
    "sha256": "4a8e52e10b15ab25464c6c2474da3513cefe5b3b716d71722d60615a10385f08",
    "simhash": "1:d8b58e1432da8b1f",
    "word_count": 225
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:33.218655+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. RAY DRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Ctteiam.\nThe record proper filed in tbis Court is fatally defective for the reason that no warrant appears therein.\nThe appeal is dismissed on the authority of S. v. Currie, 206 N. C., 598, 174 S. E., 447, and Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Ctteiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Patton and Rhodes for the State.",
      "B. T. Bost, Jr., and B. W. Blachwelder for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. RAY DRY.\n(Filed 12 April, 1944.)\nCriminal Daw \u00a7 77a\u2014\nOn appeal in a criminal case the indictment or warrant is a- necessary-part of the case on appeal and in its absence the appeal will be dismissed.\nAppeal by defendant from Armstrong, J., at January Term, 1944, of CABARRUS.\nDefendant entered a plea of guilty on 8 February, 1943, to charges contained in four separate warrants, in the recorder\u2019s court of Cabarrus County. Prison sentence was entered, in each case and suspended upon certain conditions. The recorder of said court, on 6 December, 1943, found as a fact that the defendant had willfully violated the terms and conditions of the suspended sentence in one of the above cases, and ordered capias to issue. Defendant appealed to the Superior Court and the judgment of the recorder\u2019s court was affirmed. Whereupon, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court and assigns error.'\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Patton and Rhodes for the State.\nB. T. Bost, Jr., and B. W. Blachwelder for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0234-01",
  "first_page_order": 282,
  "last_page_order": 283
}