{
  "id": 8683606,
  "name": "The State v. Isaac Dickenson",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dickenson",
  "decision_date": "1819-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "10",
  "last_page": "11",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Mur. 10"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 N.C. 10"
    }
  ],
  "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": 135,
    "char_count": 1784,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47396643588101084
    },
    "sha256": "d6d2761f8a88b10d38444f08b0b5ec08bfbc7bf20aad6bcbf9a988547ade6f9b",
    "simhash": "1:59c3e33e2a72f584",
    "word_count": 305
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:45:47.457789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The State v. Isaac Dickenson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tavxor, Chief-Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe word fine might well be left out, if it obscured or confounded the sense of the scire fiadas ; and it would then read \u201c eight hundred pounds on a forfeited recognizance.\u201d But if the word be retained, it is not possible for the defendant to misapprehend the purport of the scire fa\u00e1as, because the meaning intended to be affixed to the woi>d, is explained by what follows. When the state exhibits the record shewing that the defendants recognizance was forfeited, the fact affirmed in the s\u00e1re fa\u00e1as is substantially proved, and the plea of mil iiel record, negatived \u2014 Let judgment be entered for the State.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tavxor, Chief-Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The State v. Isaac Dickenson.\nFrom Edgecombe.\nA. being' recognized in 800b to appeal\u2019, failed, and his recognizance was forfeited. Scire Facias issued against him to shew cause, \u201c why exe- \u201c cution should not issue for 800b for a fine on a forfeited recognizance, \u201c in failing to appear, &c. \u2014 Defendant pleaded \u201c nul tiel record plea negatived and judgment for the State.\nThe defendant was recognized in the sum of eight hundred pounds to appear at the Superior Court of Law for Edgecombe County $ and failing to appeal\u2019, his recognizance was forfeited, and judgment nisi was entered against him. A scire facias was sued out, directed to the Sheriff of Wayne, commanding him \u201c to make known to the de- \u201c fendant that he be and appear, &c. to shew cause why \u201c execution should not issue against him for the sum of ei eight hundred pounds for a fine on a forfeited recogni- \u201c zance in failing to make his personal appearance at \u201c March Term, &c. as he was bound to do.\u201d To this scire facias, the defendant pleaded, nul tiel record. And it was submitted to this Court, whether the record supports the scire facias."
  },
  "file_name": "0010-01",
  "first_page_order": 14,
  "last_page_order": 15
}