{
  "id": 1955454,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN DEATON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Deaton",
  "decision_date": "1871-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "496",
  "last_page": "497",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 N.C. 496"
    }
  ],
  "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": 192,
    "char_count": 2291,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.39,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.084873560937737e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8582411561446246
    },
    "sha256": "f4a9c373d6d18566ba86e5f48d2e8f6b36c31a137aa6fe1fd48818ca3283a11c",
    "simhash": "1:1ef3e428a8be1dad",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:56.423501+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN DEATON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Boyden, 3.\nThe Court at first, thought that the decision of this case might be put upon the question of jurisdiction alone, and we were disposed to put the decision upon that ground, and thereby save the scandal that must and often does arise by the investigation of such cases in the Superior Courts; but upon a close examination of the wording of the statute, we think this cannot be done, as the act authorizes the infliction of both the fine and imprisonment, and not merely a fine or imprisonment for one month, as prescribed in Article IY, Section 33, of the Constitution.\nThe words, wilful-abandonment, as used in the statute, include the act o\u00ed separation, and not merely its continuance; and as this abandonment took plaee before the passage of the statute tinder which the defendant is indicted, he cannot be convicted.\nJustices of the Peace may entertain jurisdiction of this offenee under the .act of 1869, chapter 178, by observing the rules prescribed in section 6, of sub-chapter IY. of said act, and we think at the more appropriate jurisdiction.\nPer Curiam. There is error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Boyden, 3."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Blaokmer & MeCorkle, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN DEATON.\nA husband who wilfully abandoned his wife prior to the ratification of the act of 1869, chap. 209, cannot be indicted therefor.\nJustices of the Peace have concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Courts under said act.\nThe defendant was indicted under the 1st section of chapter 209, act of 1869, entitled \u201c an act to protect married women from the wilful abandonment, or neglect of their husbands,\u201d tried before Cloud, J., at Spring Term, 1811, of Rowan Superior Court.\nThe facts, were that in 1866, the defendant wilfully abandoned his wife, without providing her with adequate support, since which time he has never lived with her, nor in any manner provided for her maintenance. The defendant\u2019s counsel asked the Court to instruct the j ury, that as the abandonment occurred prior to the ratification of the act of April 12th, 1869, that \u25a0defendant was not guilty, which the Court declined doing, but-informed the jury if they believed the facts to be true, as testified to by the witnesses, then defendant was guilty, to which \u25a0defendant excepted. Yerdict guilty. Rule, &c. Appeal to the Supreme Court.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nBlaokmer & MeCorkle, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0496-01",
  "first_page_order": 506,
  "last_page_order": 507
}