{
  "id": 8686189,
  "name": "THE STATE v. MARTHA JENKINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jenkins",
  "decision_date": "1851-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "121",
  "last_page": "122",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "12 Ired. 121"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.C. 121"
    }
  ],
  "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": 133,
    "char_count": 1581,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.60167783687625e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2888423224674489
    },
    "sha256": "62fbe14040831c3598dc1b85bb1860a839bf3ebfc9dcfb9918221f551366aefb",
    "simhash": "1:78a9e822596a5739",
    "word_count": 264
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:22.332414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. MARTHA JENKINS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson J.\nThe mother and her child had acquired a ' settlement1 in the. County of Montgomery,-at the time\u2019this \u00a1.proceeding was- commeneed. The County of Richmond Was not chargeable, and therefore had no right to require an indemnity. There is error. The point is settled by State v. Roberts, 10 Ire. 350.\nPer Curiam. Ordered that this opinion be certified to the Court below. \\",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General for the State.",
      "J. W. Cameron and Banks for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. MARTHA JENKINS.\nAlthough a bastard be bom in one County, yet if the mother and child after] wards remove to another Couuty, and there acquire a residence before proceedings in bastardy are had against her, those proceedings must be in the latter County, which is alone responsible for the maintenance of the bastard.\nThe cas.e of the Statk v Roberts, 10 Ire. 350, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Richmond County, at the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Manet presiding.\nThis was a proceeding under the \u201c Bastardy Act,\u201d instituted in the County Court of Richmond County. It appeared, that the child was born in Richmond County, that the mother and child removed to Montgomery County and there resided more than two years before this proceeding was com* menced. The defendant, therefore, moved to dismiss the prosecution for the want of jurisdiction in the County Court of Richmond, but the Court refused the motion and gave judgment against the defendant, who appealed therefrom. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the'County Court, and the defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General for the State.\nJ. W. Cameron and Banks for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0121-01",
  "first_page_order": 129,
  "last_page_order": 130
}