{
  "id": 8691603,
  "name": "THE STATE vs. EDWIN ROBBINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Robbins",
  "decision_date": "1849-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "356",
  "last_page": "358",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "9 Ired. 356"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 N.C. 356"
    }
  ],
  "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": "7 Ired. 725",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 192,
    "char_count": 2515,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "sha256": "e8b0a1ec7cb0d62accd71198a1441de75065d000ffb110450f87e0ec1bad8232",
    "simhash": "1:9bd34ee0dc2e19aa",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:40.677102+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE vs. EDWIN ROBBINS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, J.\nThere is no ground, upon which the judgment ought to be arrested. On the contrary, the Attorney General has framed an indictment, unencumbered by useless words; which, from -its brevity and clearness, may well be adopted as a precedent.\nThe averment, that the defendant \u201cunlawfully did sell and deliver\u201d to the slave, would not be supported by proof of a sale and delivery to the slave as the agent and for and on account of his owner ; nor is it necessary to negative an order of the owner or manager, the offence having been committed in the night time. State v. Miller, 7 Ired. 725, decides both points.\nThe slave is sufficiently described by his name. A further description, by giving the name of the owner, \u00cd3 not necessary. The law only requires \u201ccertainty to a certain intent in general\u201d in indictments for this offence.\nThe Court below erred in arresting the judgment. There must be a judgment for the State.\nPer Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE vs. EDWIN ROBBINS.\nan indictment for sailing to a slave in the night time, it is not necessary to negativo an order of the owner or manager, the offence having been committed in the night time.\nIn such an indictment, the slave is sufficiently identified by his name ; a further description, by giving the name of the owner, is not necessary. The case of The State v. Miller, 7 Ire. 725, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Edgecombe County, at the Spring Term 1849, his Honor Judge Settle presiding.\nThe defendant was tried and convicted upon the fol. lowing indictment, to-wit;\n\u201cState of Noetii Carolina, ) Superior Court of Law, Edgecombe County, y Fall Term, 1848.\n1 \u201cThe jurors for the State, upon their oath, present, that Edwin Robbins, a licensed retailer of spirituous liquor, by a measure less than a quart, late of the County aforesaid, at and in said County, on the first day of September in the year eighteen hundred and forty-eight, and in the night time of said day, between the hours of sunset thereof and sunrise of the day next ensuing, to a slave, named Sampson, one pint of spirituous liquor unlawfully did sell and deliver, to the common nuisance of the good citizens of the State, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.\n(Signed,) MOORE, Atto. Gen\u2019I.\nOn motion of the defendant, the judgment was arrested,, and the Attorney General appealed.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0356-01",
  "first_page_order": 386,
  "last_page_order": 388
}