{
  "id": 1972656,
  "name": "THE STATE vs. AMOS L. RAY & AL.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ray",
  "decision_date": "1849-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "10 Ired. 39"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 N.C. 39"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Dev. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277331
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692933
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Mur. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276393
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/5/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Dev. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277331
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692933
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Mur. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276393
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/5/0254-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 3007,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.6557406668808265e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8902856884706406
    },
    "sha256": "ad4025e7337f9097fb1c541f4f5418d5dc995ea32acd88b4fa57a02d773fee9c",
    "simhash": "1:d48c5e69852cddf8",
    "word_count": 536
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:28.368244+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE vs. AMOS L. RAY & AL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, J.\nWf concur with his Honor, below, that \u25a0the defendant is not guilty of forcible trespass. That of-fence must be charged, as being done with a strong hand, \u201c manuforti,\u201d which implies greater force than is expressed by the words \u201c vi et armis.\u201d There must be a demon stration of force, as with weapons, or a multitude of people, so as to involve a breach of the peace, or directly tend to it, and be calculated to intimidate or put in fear. State v. Flowers, 1 Mur. 254. State v. Fisher, 1 Dev. 357. State v. Mills, 2 Dev. 420. The jury find, that the defend ant obtained the note from Byrd by stratagem and \u201cfraud.\u201d This resembles larceny more than forcible trespass.\n. The Court thinks there should be judgment for the defendant.\nPer Curiam.\nOrdered to be certified accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, J. Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "J. W. Wood-fin for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE vs. AMOS L. RAY & AL.\nThe offence of forcible trespass must be charged as being done with ft strong hand, \u201c manu fortij\u2019. which implies greater force than is expressed by tha words \u2018 vi.et armis\nTo constitute the offence, there must be a demonstration of force, as with weapons or a multitude of people, so as to involve a breach of the peace, or directly teud to it, and be' calculated to intimidate or put in fear.\nThe cases of the State v. Flowers, 1 Mur. 254, State v. Fisher, 1 Dev. 357 and Slate v. , 2 Dev. 420, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Yancy County, at the Spring Term 1849, his Honor Judge Baile*presiding.\nThe defendant was indicted for a forcible trespass in seizing, and, with a strong hand, taking out of the possession of one David Byrd a certain promissory note, then in the lawful possession of the said David Byrd. The jury found a special verdict, as follows: that the defendant.had executed a promissory note for one hundred dollars, payable to William Ray, and by him indorsed to Samuel Fleming : that Samuel Fleming placed that note in the'hands of a constable for collection : that the constable served a warrant on the defendant and cited him to appear before David Byrd, a justice of the peace for Yancy County: that the note was delivered to David Byrd\u00bb the magistrate, and was in hjs possession, when the defendant asked him to let him look at it \u2014 that Jbtvid Byrd handed the warrant, with the note ipeiosed in it, to the defendant \u2014 that, the defendant shook the note out of the warrant, and slipped it into his pocket- \u2014 that Byrd immediately requested the defendant to return the note to him \u2014that the defendant refused to return the note, saying he did not have it \u2014 that the said note was obtained from the said Byrd by the defendant through stratagem and fraud, to prevent the said Byrd from giving judgment against him upon the said note. And the jury refer the question to the Court, whether in law, the defendant is guilty or not guilty.\nThe Court was of opinion with the defendant and gave judgment for him, from which judgment the Solicitor for the State appealed.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nJ. W. Wood-fin for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 39,
  "last_page_order": 40
}