{
  "id": 8695778,
  "name": "THE STATE vs. THOMAS THOMPSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1844-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "484",
  "last_page": "485",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Ired. 484"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. 484"
    }
  ],
  "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": 218,
    "char_count": 3332,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.345,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3548658628360186
    },
    "sha256": "711464d93b684f24961ed204c6b87f0350e42bdebd233b4ea03cf360da2c88d2",
    "simhash": "1:b79ed048fc739dc4",
    "word_count": 580
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:59.151638+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE vs. THOMAS THOMPSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bakiel, J.\nThe examination of Feriby Burras, as to who was the father of her bastard childr was taken on oath before two justices. She did not sign the examination, nor does the act of Assembly require her to sign it.- Below on the same paper, which contained the examination, the two justices wrote the warrant to arrest the'defendant, and signed and sealed it. The signing of the names of the two justices in the place where they did sign, sufficiently authenticated the examination of the mother of the child, and also the warrant. The proceedings would have been more1 formal, it the examination had been signed by the woman and attested by the two justices j and then a warrant issued by them, on\u2019 the same paper or on a separate paper, reciting the said affidavit or examination of the woman. \u25a0 We have examined the whole case, and think that the Judge did not err in re>-' fusing to quash the proceedings.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bakiel, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE vs. THOMAS THOMPSON.\nThe examination of a woman bofore justices of the peace, charging a man with being the father of her bastard child, need not be signed by her.\nWhen such examination was not signed by the two justices, but the warrant issued by them was on the same paper and connected with it, held that this was a sufficient authentication of the examination, though it would have been more proper if the examination had been signed by the woman and attested by the justices.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law -of Rockingham County, at Spring Term 1844, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.\nThis was a proceeding under the bastardy act. The following are the examination and warrant as returned to the Comity Court:\n\u201c State of North Carolina, ) Rockingham County. \\\nThe examination of Feriby Burras, single woman, this day taken before us, George W. Garrett and Sampson L. Cryer, two justices of the peace in and for the said county on oath, who states on said oath, that she was delivered of a bastard child on the 14th day of last month, September, and further on her examination states one Thomas Thompson of this county, planter, did beget said child of her body, which child is likely to become chargeable to the said county.\nThese are therefore to command any lawful officer of said county to apprehend the said Thomas Thompson immediately, and bring him before us or two other justices of the peace for said county, to be further dealt with according to law. Given under our hands and seals the sixth of October, 1843.\u201d\n(Signed and sealed by two justices.)\nFor want of a constable, this warrant was directed to a special officer, who returned it executed, and the defendant entered into recognizance for bis appearance at the Term of the County Court. At the County Court the defend ant appeared and moved for his discharge and a dismission of the proceedings against him, for want of a legal ex-animation of the woman and other irregularities in the proceedings. This motion was overruled- and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. In the Superior Court the motion was also overruled, and it was ordered that the appeal he dismissed, and that a writ of procedendo issue to the County Court to taire further proceedings in the case. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nAttorney General for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0484-01",
  "first_page_order": 490,
  "last_page_order": 491
}