{
  "id": 8691943,
  "name": "John Findley, County Trustee, &c. v. William W. Erwin, Clerk, &c.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Findley v. Erwin",
  "decision_date": "1813-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "244",
  "last_page": "245",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Mur. 244"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 N.C. 244"
    }
  ],
  "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": 145,
    "char_count": 2122,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.411,
    "sha256": "b725c89e09b954266d2e16052dccacbd6482a4d673f24a61137779acc45354a6",
    "simhash": "1:a010b0c3788fd3ca",
    "word_count": 371
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:35.600243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Findley, County Trustee, &c. v. William W. Erwin, Clerk, &c."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "I\u00cdENDRiisoN, Judge,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nAs the law is silent in the case of a prosecution removed from one county to another, in respect to the county entitled to the fine which may be imposed, we must have recourse to reason and construction, in order to decide the question. No doubt the fines were given to the county, to defray the expenses of those prosecutions, to which it was made liable in certain cases of acquittal, If that be correct, it follows that the county which would have been chargeable, in case of an acquittal, is entitled to the fine on conviction $ and that is the county in-which the offence was committed and in which the prosecution w-as commenced- Policy as well as justice seems to dictate this : policy, because it will make it the interest of a county, to suppress offences j justice, because those who originate a groundless prosecution ought to bear the cus\u00eds. The removal of the case to another county for trial cannot destroy that liability. We are, therefore, of opinion, that as the county of Wilkes, where'the prosecution was commenced would have been subject to the payme\u00f1t of the costs of prosecution, if the defendants had been acquitted, it should have the fine imposed on their conviction.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "I\u00cdENDRiisoN, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Findley, County Trustee, &c. v. William W. Erwin, Clerk, &c.\nJ>From Burke,\nThe removal of a prosecution from one county to another for trial, does not affect the right of the county in which the prosecution originated, to the fine imposed upon the defendant in case of conviction. For fines were given to the county to defray the expenses pf prosecution in cases of acquittal; and it necessarily follows, that the county which on an acquittal would have to pay the costs, shall nil a conviction have the fine.\nA prosecution for a conspiracy was commenced in the Superior Court of Wilkes, and removed for trial to the county of Burke, where the defendants were convicted and fined \u00a3100, which sum was paid into the office of ilie Superior Court of law for Burke. This action was brought by the county Trustee of Wilkes, to recover the money for the use of that county."
  },
  "file_name": "0244-01",
  "first_page_order": 248,
  "last_page_order": 249
}