{
  "id": 8681763,
  "name": "THE STATE v. JOHN HARRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harris",
  "decision_date": "1870-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "127",
  "last_page": "128",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 127"
    }
  ],
  "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": 178,
    "char_count": 2403,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.394,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5201477446598438e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6691407491324783
    },
    "sha256": "b120d52f89631ce99dcd2385ec64954b2f2bace83019d0417c0105849d0a7f8e",
    "simhash": "1:ecc5c4703734f849",
    "word_count": 436
  },
  "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. JOHN HARRIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe object of describing property stolen by its quality and quantity, is that it may appear to the Court to be of value. Tbe object of describing it by its usual name, ownership, &o., is to enable tbe defendant to make bis defence, and to protect himself against a second conviction.\nIn the case under consideration, tbe substance of tbe charge, is, steabng flour \u2014 fifty pounds of flour \u2014 from which it is apparent that it was of value; and the exact quantity and value need not be proved. The objection made, is, that it was a u sac 7c of flour;\u201d by which we understand flour in a sack or bag. If the defendant stole the flour, it makes no difference whether it was in a sack, or bag, or box, or lying about loose. It was of value, and its character was not changed. An indictment charged the stealing of \u201c a parcel of oats held to be sufficient. So another indictment charged the stealing of a \u201c hogthe proof was a shoat: held to be sufficient. But proof of stealing mutton will not support a charge of stealing a sheep, for the things are different.\nIn the case under consideration, the proof of stealing a sack of flour, i. e., flour in a sack or bag, sustains the charge of stealing flour, and it was not necessary to prove its exact weight or value. . , \u25a0\nThere is error. This will be certified, to the end that there may be judgment in the Court below upon the verdict, according to law.\nPee Cubiam. Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "No Counsel, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. JOHN HARRIS.\nAn indictment for stealing \u201cfifty pounds of flour, of the value of sixpence,\u201d is good; and is sustained by proof that the party charged stole a scialc of flour, although there was no proof of its weight, or of its value further than that the defendant had said that he gave five and a half dollars for it.\nLarceny, tried before.Toargee, ./., at Fall Term 1869, of Chatham Court.\nThe indictment described the article taken, as u Fifty pounds of flour, of the value of sixpence.\u201d A special verdict was-found : viz:\n1. That the defendant had stolen, &c., \u201c one sack of flour the property of,\u201d &c.\n2. That there was no evidence of its weight.\n3. That the only evidence of its value, was an allegation of defendant given in evidence, that he paid $5 50 for it.\nThereupon, His Honor ordered a verdict of Not G-uilty to he entered, and gave Judgment accordingly ; and the Solicitor for the State appealed.\nAttorney-General, for the State.\nNo Counsel, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0127-01",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 152
}