{
  "id": 11278448,
  "name": "STATE vs. MARY A. TURNER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Turner",
  "decision_date": "1872-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "618",
  "last_page": "619",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 N.C. 618"
    }
  ],
  "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": 199,
    "char_count": 2576,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.38,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0463145471458043e-07,
      "percentile": 0.552165589576844
    },
    "sha256": "5120eac3b1ffbe7452586fa6563faf711702bc944d1e6ad1eec449a1c4a303ef",
    "simhash": "1:52f20349d3b88d1e",
    "word_count": 445
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:37.048272+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. MARY A. TURNER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EoydeN, J.\nHis Honor was mistaken in this case, in supposing that our domestic turkey is a creature ferae naturae. All the authorities cited by His Honor, are cases of creatures ferae naturae, and we take the case to be clear, that where a creature (for the stealing of which) a defendant is indicted is ferae naturae, it will not be sufficient to allege, that the property was of the goods and chattels of one A. B., the owner; in such case, the indictment must further allege, that the creature was dead, tamed, confined or reclaimed, Russell on Crimes, vol. 2, p. 152. But surely this cannot be the case, when the defendant is indicted for stealing one of our domesticated turkeys.\nIn Bishop's Criminal Law, vol. 2, sec. 787-788, speaking of animals, ferae naturae, and of which larceny may be committed, when reclaimed says, \u201cdomestic animals and fowls, such as horses, oxen, sheep, hens, peafowls, turkeys and the like; which being tame in their nature, are the subject of larceny on precisely the same grounds as other personal property. As to what is a reclaiming of a wild animal, killing him and getting possession of his carcass is so ; that such carcass is fit for food, is a subject of larceny. There is error. This will be certified, so that the Court may proceed to judgment.\nPer GuRIAM. Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EoydeN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General for the State.",
      "No Gouusel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. MARY A. TURNER.\n1. The turkey is a domestic animal; therefore when a bill of indictment charges that A. B. \u201cone turkey of value of six pence, of the goods and chattels of C. D., feloniously did steal, take, and carry away,\u201d held that such indictment is sufficient in law.\nS. Distinction between stealing domestic animals, and animals ferae natwae stated by Boxben, Judge.\nThis was an indictment tried before Clarke, Judge, at'Eall Term of Wayne Superior Court.\nThe indictment charged that the defendant, \u201cone turkey of the value of five cents, of the goods and chattels of William Canis, feloniously did steal, &c.\u201d Upon the testimony in the case, the defendant was convicted. A motion in arrest of judgment was made by the defendant and sustained by His Honor upon the ground, \u201cthat the indictment was insufficient, for that it failed to'state that the turkey stolen was a iaTOd turkey. That the turkey was a native fowl of America, large numbers are found in every part of the State, wild and unre-claimed, and that the indictment should have negatived the presumption, that the turkey in question was wild and unreclaim-ed.\u201d\nFrom the ruling of His Honor, the State appealed to the Supreme Court.\nAttorney General for the State.\nNo Gouusel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0618-01",
  "first_page_order": 640,
  "last_page_order": 641
}