{
  "id": 11277961,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES CREDLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Credle",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "507",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 506"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Hawks 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11276570
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/8/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Hawks 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11276570
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/8/0462-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1724,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4763631580541164e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6602466012497253
    },
    "sha256": "5d4aaf7adaf9e141662bd3f41c40a6cad97acd614f2ce044bf1694050d37c93c",
    "simhash": "1:dd1f044bcb8ab4b3",
    "word_count": 310
  },
  "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 CREDLE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\n\u201c Nemo d\u00e9bet vis vexari, pro una et eadem causa,\u201d is a principle of the common law, as well as of humanity.\nThe bill of indictment upon which the defendant was put to trial contained two counts, and there was a general verdict of not guilty.\nAdmitting that there was error in his Honor\u2019s charge, as to the second count, it cannot be reviewed upon appeal by the State; Siate v. Taylor, 1 Hawks 462 \u2014 for, while the humanity of our law gives the right of appeal to the accused in'rill cases, the class of cases in which the State has that right/- is-very small.- A legal acquittal in any Court of competent, jurisdiction, if the indictment b\u00e9 good, as we'- think it was im this case, will preclude any subsequent proceedings before--ev\u00e9ry other Court.\nPer Ctjriam. \u2022 Appeal dismissed!",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. H. Busbee, for the State.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES CREDLE.\nError in the charge of the Court, on a trial for crime, -will not give the State a right to appeal after a verdict of not guilty.\n(Stale v. Taylor, 1 Hawks 462, cited and approved.)\nMisdemeanor, in killing live-stock, tried before Jones, J.r at Fall Term 1868, of the Superior Court of Beaufort.\nThe defendant, was indicted for killing a steer: in the first count alleged to be property of one James Edwards, and in the second, of some person unknown.\nHis Honor charged the jury that they must be satisfied that the defendant did kill the steer, and that it was the property of James Edwards, as charged in the first count of the indictment; and that, if they were not so satisfied, they could not convict on the second count. To this part of the charge the Solicitor excepted. There was a verdict o\u00ed \u201c not guilty,\u201d andl the Solicitor for the State appealed.\nF. H. Busbee, for the State.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 522,
  "last_page_order": 523
}