{
  "id": 2085521,
  "name": "STATE v. DAVID B. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1873-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "364",
  "last_page": "365",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 N.C. 364"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2329,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.435,
    "sha256": "c99878aef1427c7f2865e44fa0243ff83fe525480d75a20390109d054bf85786",
    "simhash": "1:172d1026864e54bd",
    "word_count": 406
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:27:51.762407+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. DAVID B. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rodman, J.\nThe defendant moves in arrest of judgment, because,\n1. The jury did not find on which count he was guilty.\nAn answer to this is that the first count was the only one which charged the defendant, consequently the verdict could, apply to that only. The second count was against two other persons as aiders, &c., who were ndt on trial.\n2. That the Act of 1868-69, upon which the indictment was framed, had been repealed before the trial by the Act of 1870-'71, chap. 222.\nBut this last Act applies only to offenses committed after its passage, and does not profess to repeal the prior act as to any offenses committed before. The offense is charged to have been committed before the passage of the Act off 1870-'71.\nThere is no error.\nLet this opinion be certified.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed-",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for the prisoner in this Court.",
      "Attorney General Hargrove, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. DAVID B. JONES.\nIt is no ground for arresting a judgment .because the Jury did not find on whi\u00abh count in an lndiotment for araon, the defendant was guilty; the first oount being the only one charging the defendant, the second charging others as alder* and abetters.\nThe Act of 1870-71, chap. 267, applies only to offenoea commlttedafter ita passage; and doea not repeal the Act of 1868-\u201969, chap. 20, aa to any offense committed before.\nIndictment, arson, tried before Clarice, J., at the Spring Term, 1863, of the Superior Court of Wayne county.\nThe defendant, with two others not taken,, was charged -with the burning of the dwelling house of one Mirand Wise .on the night of the 11th of February, 1871. The indictment, under the Act of the 10th of April, 1869, contained \u00a1two counts: the first, charging the prisoner with one Howard ?and Underwood with burning the house; and the second, charging that Howard and Underwood were present with \u2022the prisoner, aiding and abetting the commission of the mffense.\nOn the trial below, after the charge of his Honor, the defendant\u2019s counsel ask one for instruction, which was given.\nThere was a verdict of guiltj\u2019. Motion for a new trial; t\u00edLotion refused. The defendant\u2019s counsel moved to arrest the judgment on the ground that the jury in their verdict failed to say on which of the two counts in the indictment they find the defendant guilty.\nMotion refused. Judgment ..and appeal.\nNo counsel for the prisoner in this Court.\nAttorney General Hargrove, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0364-01",
  "first_page_order": 372,
  "last_page_order": 373
}