{
  "id": 2092641,
  "name": "STATE vs. ISAAC HOWARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Howard",
  "decision_date": "1872-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "24",
  "last_page": "25",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 N.C. 24"
    }
  ],
  "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": 168,
    "char_count": 2444,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.409,
    "sha256": "b56178fdf1cf26d28c3886f50b2483559e0ea2ee7fd855cf1658cb652db7dfe9",
    "simhash": "1:bae0b44293a9fefd",
    "word_count": 435
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:25.131400+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. ISAAC HOWARD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rodman, J.\nThe charge against the defendant is that he was \u201c found off of his premises on the Sabbath day, having with him a shot-gun, contrary to the statute,\u201d &c.\nThe jury found a special verdict, to wit: \u201cThat defendant was carrying his gun off of his premises on Sunday, but it is not proved that he was hunting.\u201d On this the Court adjudged \u2022 the defendant not guilty.\nThe Act of 1868-9, ch. 18, creates two distinct offences: 1. Hunting on the Sabbath day with a dog or dogs. 2. Being found off of one\u2019s premises on the Sabbath, having a shot-gun, rifle or pistol.\nThe indictment follows the words of the Act creating the latter offence. The words have a plain and obvious meaning as they stand. It is not necessary to interpolate so as to make them read, \u201c Being found hunting off of one\u2019s premises,\u201d in order to make them intelligible, and to do so would change the whole meaning of the sentence, and frustrate what appears to be the legislative policy. Courts have no right to do that.\nJudgment must be reversed.\nPee Curiam, Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, Battle ds Son, and JDvpre for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. ISAAC HOWARD.\nThe Act of 1868 \u2014 \u201969, chap. 18 creates two offences: 1st. Hunting on the Sabbath with a dog. 2d. Being found off one\u2019s premises having a shotgun, rifle or pistol. Therefore, a conviction is sustainable under an indictment charging the defendant with being \u201c found off his premises on the Sabbath day, having with him a shot-gun, contrary to the form of the statute,\u201d &c.\nIndictment at Spring Term, 1872, of Lenoir Superior Court, under the Act of 1868-\u201969, chap. 18, in the following words:\n\u201c The jurors of the State upon their oath present that Isaac Howard, late of the County aforesaid, on the 1st day of January, 1870, with force and arms, at and in the County aforesaid, was found off of -his premises on the Sabbath day, having with him a shot-gun, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nThe jury returned a special verdict, \u201c That the defendant was carrying his gun off of his premises on Sunday, but it is not proved that he was hunting; whereupon, if the Court shall be of opinion that the defendant is guilty, then the jury say he is guilty as charged in the indictment, otherwise that he is not guilty.\u201d\nHis Honor Olarke, J., adjudged the defendant not gxdlty, and the Solicitor appealed.\nAttorney General, Battle ds Son, and JDvpre for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0024-01",
  "first_page_order": 34,
  "last_page_order": 35
}