{
  "id": 11276117,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES PULLEY and ELLIS WILKERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pulley",
  "decision_date": "1868-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "8",
  "last_page": "10",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 8"
    }
  ],
  "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": 237,
    "char_count": 3341,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.398,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2567757038239026e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7821871082059224
    },
    "sha256": "42ead79631a69b29a27e9ae2c309aa67f07c1a9aa3e31085b805aff68bd82c44",
    "simhash": "1:ac97404b06ed6536",
    "word_count": 590
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES PULLEY and ELLIS WILKERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, C. J.\nThe witness was impeached by tbe position in which be stood before the jury,' \u2014 that of an accomplice turning \u201c State\u2019s witness,\u201d and we can see no reason why the Solicitor for tbe State was not at liberty, by questions asked upon tbe examination in chief, to enable tbe witness to say that be bad made a different statement, and then give an explanation, by stating what was tbe cause of bis doing so. Suppose the matter had been passed over, and the prisoners bad afterwards proved that the witness bad made a different statement: It certainly would then have been proper for tbe Solicitor to recall tbe witness and give him an opportunity of making tbe explanation. What prejudice could, by any possibility, be done to tbe prisoner by tbe course pursued by tbe Solicitor in asking these questions by way of anticipating what be supposed would afterwards come out in tbe course of the trial, in consequence of what had been elicited from the witness by a gentleman of the bar.\nThe' motion in arrest was based on the manner in which the word \u201c store\u201d is disconnected by a comma from the word \u201c warehouse,\u201d as printed in the Revised Code, but upon inspection of the enrolled bill in the office of the Secretary of State, it appears to be a misprint, by the introduction of a comma which is not contained in the enrolled bill. The word \u201c store\u201d is there plainly used as an adjective, connected with \u201c ware\u201d by the disjunctive \u201c or,\u201d both being added to the word \u201c house\u201d \u2014 thus, \u201c store or ware house,\u201d whereas, as printed the word \u201c store\u201d might be considered as used for a substantive. Upon an inspection of the enrolled bill the counsel for the prisoners properly abandoned the motion.\nThere is no error. This will be certified to the end, &c.\nPer Curiam. No error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for tbe State.",
      "Graham, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES PULLEY and ELLIS WILKERSON.\n.A witness for the State (here an accomplice) having been asked upon the .examination, in chief, whether he has not upon some other occasion given a .different statement of the transaction, may thereupon, at the instance of the Solicitor, be permitted to explain why he gave such statement.\nThe comma, at the end of the word \u201c store,\u201d in section 2, of Rev. Code, ch. 34, is a misprint; the enrolled bill in the office of the Secretary of State has no such comma, and thus shows that the word is used as an adjective, qualifying the word \u201c house\u201d which follows.\nARSON, tried before Gilley, J., at Spring Term 1868, of tbe Superior Court of Person.\nUpon tbe trial, one Stokes, an accomplice, a colored boy of 16 years of age, was a principal witness to prove tbe commission of tbe crime. On tbe examination in chief, after be bad given an account of tbe transaction, be was asked by the Solicitor if be bad since denied this statement to be true. He answered that on one occasion he bad denied it to a gentleman of tbe bar. Tbe Solicitor then asked why be bad \u25a0denied it. Tbe prisoner\u2019s counsel objected to this question. Tbe Court overruled tbe objection, and allowed tbe witness to say that be denied it in consequence of threats made to him by one Thaxter, a colored man living in Virginia, who though not a preacher, held meetings in Ms neighborhood which one of the prisoners attended.\nVerdict, Guilty; Eule for a new trial; Eule discharged; Judgment and Appeal.\nAttorney General, for tbe State.\nGraham, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0008-01",
  "first_page_order": 24,
  "last_page_order": 26
}