{
  "id": 11277906,
  "name": "STATE v. SANDY RATTS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ratts",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "503",
  "last_page": "504",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 503"
    }
  ],
  "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": 135,
    "char_count": 1621,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.97659533772848e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4634505718287051
    },
    "sha256": "fc647249f57db91b73c2efcaca0c6d6cb6fcdb9a84438bd319af130843326b58",
    "simhash": "1:aa2fe680cc5805ae",
    "word_count": 275
  },
  "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. SANDY RATTS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Dick,. J.\n.Where an offence exists at common law, and only the punishment is altered by statute \u2014 in such cases it is not necessary for the indictment to conclude \u201cagainst the form of the statute,\u201d as it is the offense which is the subject of the indictment, not the punishment.\nIf an offence at common law is made an offence of a higher nature by statute, then the indictment must conclude against the statute, 2 Hale P. C. 189,1 Saund. 145,1 Moody 402 \u2014 404', 1 Bish. Or. Law, Oh. XI.\nThe offence alleged in the indictment in this case, is petit larceny at' common law, and the punishment for such offence, was whipping, imprisonment, or other corporal punishment. This punishment has been mitigated to imprisonment at hard labor, by a recent statute, Acts 1868, ch. 44, sec. 5.\nThe indictment is properly drawn according to the common law, and his Honor was right in inflicting the statutory punishment. There is no error.\nLet this be certified, &c.\nPee Cubiam. No Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dick,. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Boyden <& Ba\u00fcey, for the appellants.",
      "Attorney General, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. SANDY RATTS.\n\"When the punishment for a common law offence has been mitigated by statute, it is not proper that the indictment shall conclude \u201cagainst the form of the statute.\u201d\nLarceny, tried before Oloud, J., at Spring Term 1869, of the Superior Court of Eowan.\nThe defendant was convicted of the larceny, whereupon he moved that the judgment be arrested for the following reason: that as the punishment of the offence had recently been altered by statute, the indictment should have concluded \u201c against the form of the statute, &c.\u201d\nMotion overruled. Judgment and appeal.\nBoyden <& Ba\u00fcey, for the appellants.\nAttorney General, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0503-01",
  "first_page_order": 519,
  "last_page_order": 520
}