{
  "id": 8695462,
  "name": "STATE v. JOSEPH BUCKLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Buckley",
  "decision_date": "1875-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "361",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.C. 358"
    }
  ],
  "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. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697547
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0513-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 N. C., 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697547
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0513-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 417,
    "char_count": 6469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.434,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.010300162833113e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3728927825521874
    },
    "sha256": "dac64bd3b8318f6882468d0d874afedc3d885bec41330206289abe343e1d350d",
    "simhash": "1:633d409e5fd8963e",
    "word_count": 1163
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:46.712943+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOSEPH BUCKLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nWe answer the objection of the defendant to the amendment of the record, in the language of this Court in State v. Upton, 1 Dev., 513. \u201c It would be a serious obstruction to the administration of justice if transcripts sent from one Court to another, sometimes loosely made up, could not be amended by the original record. It is every day practice to do so, and it is consistent with principle.\u201d Of eoui\u2019se it can make no difference at what time during the term the amendment is made.\nThe defendant has no just ground of complaint either to the charge or the rulings of his Honor.\nIn Jackson's case, 45 N. C., 305, the defendant took advantage of the drunken condition of the prosecutor to abstract his money from his person. Hero the defendant first administered drugged liquor, which had the effect almost immediately to make the prosecutor, in the language of the witness, \u201c as limber as a dish-rag,\u201d and then took his money.\nWe think it was clearly competent to show the condition of the prosecutor for sometime thereafter, to establish :\n1. The fact that he had been drugged.\n2. To show the potency of the drug administered.\nThe record states that no point was made as to the identity of the money, and indeed it would have been useless to have made the point after the voluntary confession of the defendant to the officer that he had taken the prosecutor\u2019s money, and would return it rather than go to jail.\nThere is no error. This will be certified, &c.\nPeR Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilson <& Son, for the prisoner.",
      "Attorney General Hargrove, for the fitate."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOSEPH BUCKLEY.\nIt would be a serious obstruction to the administration of justice, if transcripts sent from one Court to another, sometimes loosely made up, could not be amended by the original records. The Courts have authority so to amend, in order to make such transcript conform to the original record.\nUpon a trial of larceny, it is competent for the Btate to show the condition of the prosecutor at the time of the alleged larceny, and for sometime thereafter, in order to prove that he had been drugged, as well as the potent effects of the drug administered.\n(Upton\u2019s case, 1 Dev. 513, and State v. jaelcson, 65 N. C. Hep. 305j cited and approved.)\nIndictment for Larceny, tried before Schench, J., at Fall Term, 1874, Cabarrus Superior Court.\nThe larceny was alleged to have been committed in an alley eading from the Charlotte hotel to a livery stable in the rear of the lot, at the end of an omnibus, which stood near a shed.\nOne Whitlock, keeper of- the stables, testified that he was at the stable and saw the defendant Buckley, and Boyd from whom the money was stolen, coming down the alley arm in arm, early in the morning, also four other men whom he did not know, following close after them. Defendant said to Boyd, \u201c Your name is Boyd and mine is Boyd, lets take a drink.\u201d Boyd then drank out of a bottle of Buckley\u2019s and very soon became \u201cas limber as a dish-rag, and seemed to lose his senses.\u2019\u2019 At that time Buckley, Boyd and the four men were at the step of the omnibus. One of the men, \u201c a little Irishman,\u201d pretending to be very drunk, pulled out some cards and threw them down on the omnibus step, and all the men said to Boyd \u201cbet,bet;\u201d Boyd replied, \u201cI never do bet,\u201d and refused to bet. Just then one of the party, witness could not say which as they were all close together, put his hand into Boyd\u2019s left hand pants pocket. Boyd clasped his hand on the pocket and said, \u201c Don\u2019t take my money,\u201d but the man did take it.\nWitness attracted by this conversation gave better attention and came nearer to them. The man with \u201c white pants \u201d had the money, and counted it out, $75.00, and handed it to one of the others, who immediately made off with it. They were all strangers, and witness had not seen them since.\nAs soon as the money was taken the party scattered and-Buckley led the old man Boyd back to the stable. Boyd was complaining and Buckley said, \u201cHush, we\u2019ll fix those fellows.\u201d Witness followed to the hotel and found two of the men paying their bills and getting ready to leave.\nBoyd was senseless and helpless and was lifted by the porter and put in a chair, from which he was lifted into an omnibus and carried to the depot. Witness had brought the four men from Monroe after Robinson\u2019s circus was there. Defendant came there from some other place. Witness described the money as \u201cgreenbacks,\u201d and no point was made as to the identity. One ten dollar bill was particularly described as a new bill. This occurred just before the northern train was to leave on the North Carolina Railroad.\nWitness was asked by the Solicitor, \u201c If he saw Boyd after this at the Mayor\u2019s office, and on the hearing of the habeas corpus a day or two afterwards, and what was his condition ?\u201d Defendant objected. The objection was overruled by the Court, and prisoner excepted. Witness then stated that he saw Boyd at the Mayor\u2019s office that day, and he was unable to testify. That he saw him two days afterwards at the court house; that he was \u201c drowsy, stupid and talked like he was not in his right mind, but was better than when at the Mayor\u2019s office.\nPrisoner requested the Court, among other things, to charge the jury, \u201cthat if it was the purpose of the defendant to induce Boyd to bet the money at cards, then in such case he is not guilty of larceny.\u201d\nPrisoner further requested the Court to instruct the jury, \u201cThat to constitute larceny the felonious taking must be done fraudulently and secretly so as not only to deprive Boyd of his property, but also to leave him without knowledge of the taker.\nHis Honor refused the specific instruction asked for and charged the jury that no intention with which the taking was done, had been fairly left to the jury. As to the second charge asked for, his Honor declined to give it in that language on the ground that the word \u201csecretly\u201d might mislead them, but charged \u201cthat larceny might be committed without secrecy in one sense, as in Henderson\u2019s case, or it might be done in daylight or in a crowd, that it must however bo fraudulently done, that this was indispensable to the commission of larceny. That the leading idea in larceny was an attempt to evade the law.\u201d\nThe jury rendered a verdict of guilty. There was a motion for a new trial \u2014 motion overruled.\nMotion in arrest of judgment because the seal of the Court was not attached.\nMotion was overruled, judgment pronounced, and the prisoner appealed.\nWilson <& Son, for the prisoner.\nAttorney General Hargrove, for the fitate."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 368,
  "last_page_order": 371
}