{
  "id": 2092692,
  "name": "STATE vs. WILLIAM HANEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Haney",
  "decision_date": "1872-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "467",
  "last_page": "470",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 N.C. 467"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Dev. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8687182
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8687182
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0189-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 303,
    "char_count": 5148,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.385,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1210947401667803e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7645378166835209
    },
    "sha256": "38e04aa63e5d4a06f26e336e988927c1b1feae827843451b7c8d74ddc0ba7f9b",
    "simhash": "1:f7df83e6044d3ef4",
    "word_count": 925
  },
  "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. WILLIAM HANEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reads, J.\nThere is no reason to suppose that the homicide grew out of any \u201c war duties or war passions,\u201d so as to bring it within the benefit of the amnesty act. Long after the war was over, but prior to 1st January, 1866, the parties quarrelled abont a trade which they had made while they were soldiers, and the prisoner killed the deceased. They were not enemies during the war, but were together in the same army on the same side, so that the transaction about which they subsequently quarrelled was] not an act of hostility but of friendly dealing. We are of the opinion that the amnesty act does not apply. State v. Blalock, Phil. R.; State v. Shelton, 65, N. C. R.\nThere was a motion in arrest of judgment in this Court, upon the ground that the indictment did not charge the time of the death of the deceased, nor that it was within a year and day from t'he time when the wound was inflicted. The objection would be fatal if' it were sustained by the fact, for \u201c if the death did not take place within a year and a day of the time of receiving the wound, the law draws the conclusion that it was not the cause of death.\u201d In State v. Orrell, 1 Dev. R. 139, the language in the indictment was, \u201c of which said mortal wound the said Penelope Orrell died.\u201d It did not state when or where she died, nor did it state that she then and there instantly died, as is usual to state. In that case the indictment was held to be bad, and judgment was arrested.\nThe case before ns differs from that in tills: \u201c Of which said mortal wound the said James Haney then and there did languish and then and there did die.\u201d It is to be regretted that there should ever be negligent departures from established forms, and, in capital cases especially, experiments are very reprehensible: but still we think the indictment sufficient. \u201c Then and there died \u201d distinguishes it from the case of State v. Orrell, supra. The usual! form is, \u201c then and there instantly died.\u201d And it is insisted that the omission of \u201c instantly\u201d leaves the time of the death indefinite, and that it is made still more indefinite by the preceding words, \u201c did languish.\u201d And that \u201c then and there did languish \u201d and \u201c then and there did die,\u201d are inconsistent. From the omission of the word instantly, and from the insertion of \u201c did languish,\u201d we infer that the deceased did not die immediately ; but still, from the words, \u201cthen and there died,\u201d we infer that hot died at that place and on that day. This construction is in consonance with our statute, which provides that in criminal proceedings \u201cjudgment shall not he stayed by reason of any informality or refinement, if in the bill or proceedings sufficient matter appears to enable the Court to proceed to judgment.\u201d And again: \u201cNo judgment upon any indictment, &c., shall be stayed, &e., nor for omitting to state the time at which the offence was committed in any case where time is not of the essence of the offence, \u00e9so.\u201d Rev. Code, Chap. 35, Sees. 15 and 20. \u201e\nThere is no error. This will be certified to the end that there may be judgment and execution according to law.\nPer Curiam. No Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reads, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General and Battle, for the State.",
      "Ovide Dupre, for prisoner."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. WILLIAM HANEY.\nWhere a homicide was committed in November. 1865, and it appeared that the prisoner and deceased belonged to the same armv, and that the quarrel which preceded the homicide did not grow out of \u201cany war duties or war passions,\u201d but out of a private transaction between the parties; it was held, that in such a case the amnesty act did not apply.\nWhere a bill of indictment for murder did not allege the time o\u00ed the death, nor that it occurred within a year and a day irom the time when the wound was inflicted, but used these words, \u201c of which said mortal wound the said J H. did languish, and then and there did die;\u201d Held, that the charge in the indictment was sufficient; especially uuder the act of,the General Assembly, Rev. Code, chap. 35, secs, \u00cd5 and 30.\n[State v. Orrell, 1 Dev. 189, cited and approved.]\nThis was an indictment for murder, tiied before Henry, J at Spring Term,. 1872, of Yancey Superior Court.\nThe prisoner was charged with the murder of James Haney. The evidence was that the homicide was committed in November, 1865.\nThe quarrel grew out of a misunderstanding concerning a discharge which the deceased had purchased from the prisoner, and which the deceased desired the prisoner to take back, and to give up a pistol, &c., &c. The prisoner refused to recant the trade, and an altercation took place in which the deceased was shot and killed by the prisoner. It was agreed by the Solicitor and the prisoner\u2019s counsel, that the deceased and prisoner, in the early part of the war, both belonged to the Confederate army, and that afterwards they both joined the Pederal army, from which they had both been discharged, and returned to their homes sometime prior to the homicide.\nPrisoner moved for his discharge under the amnesty act, which was refused by the Court. Under a charge from the Court the jury found a verdict of guilty. Judgment of death was pronounced, from which prisoner appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General and Battle, for the State.\nOvide Dupre, for prisoner."
  },
  "file_name": "0467-01",
  "first_page_order": 479,
  "last_page_order": 482
}