{
  "id": 8680941,
  "name": "THE STATE v. CHARLES NEWBY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Newby",
  "decision_date": "1870-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "23",
  "last_page": "25",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 23"
    }
  ],
  "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": "5 Denio, 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Denio",
      "case_ids": [
        1881399
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/denio/5/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 D & B., 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "D & B.,",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 D. & B., 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "D. & B.,",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2456,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.371,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3380779594094317e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6305842541399131
    },
    "sha256": "7a986b8dcef2b908a603b83795317259490a79e0d501400824472f3e5427cc56",
    "simhash": "1:e180a6fe46c0c079",
    "word_count": 431
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. CHARLES NEWBY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eeade, J.\nIn the spoliation or destruction of property, malice towards the owner, must be the inducement, in order to constitute the crime of malicious mischief at common law.\nThis was not controverted by the Attorney-general, but he insisted that the fact of killing the ox being found, malice must be inferred, just as in homicide. The difference is that homicide is a crime per se, and excuse or justification must, come from the defence, or appear in the cause ; but to kill an ox is not so; and therefore malice toward the owner-must be found. It was not found in this case, and therefore-the defendant was entitled to an acquittal. State v. Jackson, 12 Ire., 329; State v. Latham, 13 Ire., 33.\nThere is no error. Let this he certified.\nPer Curiam. No error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eeade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-general, for the State.",
      "F. II. Busbee, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. CHARLES NEWBY.\n.A special verdict in an indictment for Malicious mischief, which omits to find that the act was done with malice towards the owner of the property injured, is equivalent to an acquittal.\n(State v. Jackson, 12 Ire., 329, State v. Latham, 13 He., 33, cited and approved.)\nMalicious Misohiee, tried before Pool, J., at Spring Term 1869, of Perquimans Court.\nA special verdict found that the ox in question, was killed by the defendant in December 1866, in a field belonging to the defendant, within which no crop was growing; that the cattle of the plaintiff were frequently in such field, and plaintiff had been previously notified by the defendant of .that fact; that the fence was not a lawful one ; that the defendant fired upon the ox from the door of his own house,, and as soon as he saw it; and that after killing it he sent word to its owner, the prosecutor.\nIn regard to the point of malice, the solicitor submitted to the Court that, as the killing was in the winter, when there was no crop upon the ground, the law implied malice.\nHis Honor, however, directed a verdict of Not guilty to-, be entered, and the Solicitor appealed.\nAttorney-general, for the State.\nAbsence of a reasonable influential and apparent motive, at the time, implies malice. The principle governing cases of homicide without legal justification, seems applicable. See State v. Landreth, 2nd Law Eepos. 446 ; State v. Robinson, 3 D. & B., 130.\nF. II. Busbee, contra.\nThe ruling below is correct. 4 Bl. Coin. 343 ; State v. Robinson, 3 D & B., 130 ,- Wheaton\u2019s Cr. Law, \u00a7 2011; State v. Latham, 13 Ire. 33 ; Kirlvpatrick v. The People, 5 Denio, 277 ; State v. Jackson, 12 Ire., 329."
  },
  "file_name": "0023-01",
  "first_page_order": 47,
  "last_page_order": 49
}