{
  "id": 11277230,
  "name": "STATE v. ALBERT THOMASON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thomason",
  "decision_date": "1874-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "146",
  "last_page": "147",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 N.C. 146"
    }
  ],
  "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": 198,
    "char_count": 3029,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.423,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.815755562692304e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41631790115948847
    },
    "sha256": "d8f2c2df6cb2b400e0a8573b04393d8d9807056d697f78ab7ae751f10e359295",
    "simhash": "1:5464e5355cc8deca",
    "word_count": 500
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:20.176490+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ALBERT THOMASON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bynum, J.\nThe defendant is charged in the bill of indictment with stealing \u201c two five dollar United States Treasury notes, issued by the Treasury Department of the United States Government, for the payment of five dollars each, and of the value oi five dollars each,\u201d &c.\nThe motion in arrest of judgment is not because the description of the notes is insufficient, but that it is no offence at all, because it is not made such by our statute. Bat. Rev., chap. \u25a03-2., sec. 19. The language of this'section is; \u201c Treasury warrant, debenture, certificate of stock, or other public security, \u2022or certificate of stock in any corporation, or any order, billjof \u25a0exchange, promissory note, bond, or other obligation, either for the payment of money, or,\u201d &e.\nThe words of this statute are sufficiently comprehensive to embrace this case, and as this class of \u201c public securities \u201d is in universal use, and the principal medium of commerce and \u2022measure of values, the Court would be slow to restrict the meaning of the statute, so as to leave unprotected that which is practically the chief wealth of the country. But in the case of the State v. Fulford, Phil. 563, we have a construction of this statute which is decisive of the case. It was there held to be larceny to steal \u201c one pvommissory note issued by the Treasury Department of the Government of the United States, for the payment of one dollar,\u201d and that the offence set forth in that language was sufficiently certain as to description.\nThe objection, that these \u201ctreasury notes\u201d are a class of securities created since the enactment of the statute, and are not embraced in it, has no force, since the objection would equally applied to all bonds, promissory motes or property, issued or acquired since the statute. ,\nNo error.\nPee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bynum, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McCorlde & Bailey, for defendant.",
      "Attorney General Hargrove, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ALBERT THOMASON.\nAn indictment charging the defendant with stealing \u201ctwo five dollar United States Treasury notes, issued by the Treasury Department of the United States Government, for the payment of five dollars each, and the value of five dollars:\u201d Held to be good,\n(State v. Milford, Phil. 563, cited and approved.)\nIndiotMent EOR Laroeny, tried at the Spring Term, 1814, of Rowan Superior Court, before Oloud, J.\nThe defendant was charged with stealing certain bills of our national currency, United States Treasury notes and fractional currency notes.\nUpon the trial the Court charged the jury that the national currency, bank notes, were not sufficiently described in the indictment, and that the jury was not to consider them in rendering their verdict; that there was no evidence that defendant had stolen any such fractional currency as described in the indictment, and left it to the jury to say, from the evidence, \u2022whether the defendant had stolen the United States Treasury notes as charged therein. \u2022\nThere waG a verdict of guilty. Motion in arrest of judgment ; motion disallowed. Judgment and appeal by defendant.\nMcCorlde & Bailey, for defendant.\nAttorney General Hargrove, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0146-01",
  "first_page_order": 154,
  "last_page_order": 155
}