{
  "id": 11277743,
  "name": "STATE v. T. R. LUPTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lupton",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "483",
  "last_page": "484",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 483"
    }
  ],
  "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": 203,
    "char_count": 2446,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.436,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.740326179999046e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8947492691658857
    },
    "sha256": "12ca7e48cb612f67fb831a03cf61819375b5e1fb98a215275a1bee3976fd8462",
    "simhash": "1:a730a81026fcdfbc",
    "word_count": 428
  },
  "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. T. R. LUPTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Dice, J.\nPrevious \u00a1to Jthe adoption of tbe Code of Civil Procedure, the power of the\u00a1 Court to order the prosecutor in \u25a0criminal cases to pay costs, was regulated by Statute, and limited to a certain class of cases|(Rev. Code, ch. 35, sec. 37,) \u00a1and tbe construction of this Statute has been well settled by tbe adjudication of this Court.!\nProsecutions for public offences are now defined as criminal motions (C. C..P., sec. 5,) andj no person is regarded as a \u00a1prosecutor unless be is so markedfon tbe bill of indictment.\nWhen a prosecutor is thus made party to an action for any \u25a0 bind of criminal offence he becomes liable under certain cir\u25a0cumstances to pay all costs of the action. Amendment to\u00bb ch. 21, C. C. P., sec. 559.\nHis Honor in the Court below did not determine the question, whether or not the witness Lupton was marked as prose- \u2022 -cutor. This was a preliminary question which he was bound to decide in the affirmative before he had the power to render judgment.against the witness as a prosecutor.\nThe judgment below must be reversed, so that his Honor,, after deciding the preliminary question referred to, may exercise his discretion in the matter. Let this be certified.\nPer Curiam. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dice, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Garter, for appellant.",
      "Attorney General, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. T. R. LUPTON.\nT\u00edo one is to be regarded as a prosecutor, under tbe Statute rendering prosecutors liable to pay costs, unless Ms name is marked-os such on . tbe bill of indictment.\nMisdbmeaNOR, in altering tbe mark of cattle, tried before .Jones, J., at Spring Term, 1869, of tbe Superior Court of Beaufort.\nAfter a verdict of \u201cnot guilty,\u201d tbe defendant\u2019s counsel moved that Tbomas R. Lupton, as prosecutor, be made to pay \u00a1tbe costs. It was objected on tbe part of Lupton that be was mot marked as prosecutor, and bis Honor was asked to inspect tbe record and pronounce whether or not be was so marked. \u2022Upon inspection bis Honor declared that tbe Governor was not marked as prosecutor, as is usual; but declined to say whether Lupton was so marked or not; bolding that as Lup-ton\u2019s name appeared marked on tbe back of tbe bill of indictment first under tbe word \u201c Pros.,\u201d as be bad gone before tbe grand jury which found.[the bill, and as be bad employed counsel to aid tbe Solicitor for the State in prosecuting, be would be recognized as prosecutor and held liable to pay tbe costs.\nTo this ruling Lupton excepted; tbe exception was overruled, amd be appealed.\nGarter, for appellant.\nAttorney General, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0483-01",
  "first_page_order": 499,
  "last_page_order": 500
}