{
  "id": 8689456,
  "name": "STATE vs. THOMAS COWELL AND AMANDA WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cowell",
  "decision_date": "1844-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "231",
  "last_page": "232",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Ired. 231"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. 231"
    }
  ],
  "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": 212,
    "char_count": 2950,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0081359592135435e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7438887363703444
    },
    "sha256": "49834e5e0c58b3c6f301954c7177a3a99da68481a3dab6711609baa2023b457e",
    "simhash": "1:1731e868a58a109b",
    "word_count": 492
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:59.151638+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. THOMAS COWELL AND AMANDA WILLIAMS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin, C. J.\nThe Court is of opinioh that the State is entitled to judgment against the defendants. In ordinary parlance, adultery is an aggravated species of fornication : both involving an illicit co-habitation between the sexes ; but the }attea, jg constituted, where the parties are single, or, at least, one of them; while the former imports a violation of the marriage bed. It is true, that the signification of the words, as generally received, would not be material if it were perceived that they were used by the Legislature in a peculiar and different sense; for example, as meaning precisely the same thing, instead of different modifications of an offence of the same general nature. But the language of the Legislature renders it clear, that those terms are used in the statute according to their common acceptation. The Act begins with the words, \u201c the crimes \u201d (in the plural number) \u201c of fornication and adultery &c.\u201d and concludes by enacting, \u201c that any person convicted of either of the aforesaid offen-ces, shall be fined &c.\u201d An acquittal of one is therefore not necessarily an acquittal of the other; but the parties may be pmrished for that particular grade of the offence, of which the jury finds them guilty.\nThis will accordingly be so certified to the Superior Court, that judgment may be rendered on the conviction.\nPer Curiam, Ordered accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General for the State.",
      "No comisel in this Court for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. THOMAS COWELL AND AMANDA WILLIAMS.\nWhere, on an indictment for fornication and adultery, the jury found that the defendants were guilty of fornication but not guilty of adultery, the State was entitled to judgment.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Wilkes County at Spring Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.\nThe defendants were tried upon the following indictment, to wit :\n\u201c North Carolina, ) { Superior Court of Law, Wilkes county, > S \u2018 { Spring Term, 1844.\nThe jurors for the State upon their oaths present, That Thomas Cowell, late of said Comity, laborer, and Amanda Williams, late of the said County, spinster, on the 10th day of March, in the year aforesaid, and on divers other days and times both before and after that day, with force and arms in the said comity, unlawfully did bed and co-habit together, without being lawfully married, and then and there did commit fornication and adultery, against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nThe jury found the defendants guilty of fornication but not of adultery. On motion to the Court on behalf of the State, for judgment against the defendants, the Court, being of opinion that the verdict of the Jury amounted to a verdict of acquittal, refused to render the judgment prayed for, and ordered that the defendants go without day.\nFrom this judgment the Solicitor for the State prayed for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted.\nAttorney General for the State.\nNo comisel in this Court for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0231-01",
  "first_page_order": 237,
  "last_page_order": 238
}