{
  "id": 8697248,
  "name": "STATE on the relation of SARAH TIDLINE v. WILLIS HICKERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Tidline v. Hickerson",
  "decision_date": "1875-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.C. 421"
    }
  ],
  "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": "64 N. C., 607",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683312
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0607-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Busb. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Busb.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275947
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/44/0244-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 120,
    "char_count": 1279,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.223394006428993e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3848637507437692
    },
    "sha256": "3f2746c14d7970c265b03b3fbf0036e8b02bc03b5d50fe99ecd9c53fb11706ab",
    "simhash": "1:f1105056af8341ea",
    "word_count": 222
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:46.712943+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE on the relation of SARAH TIDLINE v. WILLIS HICKERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rodman, J.\n\"We are not informed by the record for what reason his Honor rejected the deposition offered in evidence by the defendant. It is said here it was because he considered the proceeding a criminal one, in which depositions are not admitted. That a proceeding in bastardy in a civil action is settled by the cases of State v. Pate, 1 Busb. 244, and State v. McIntosh, 64 N. C., 607. The deposition was admissible.\nPee CuRIAm. Judgment below reversed and venire de novo. Let this opinion be certified.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scott c\u00a7 Caldwell, for defendant.",
      "Attorney General Hargrove, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE on the relation of SARAH TIDLINE v. WILLIS HICKERSON.\nDepositions are admissible in evidence on the trial of an issue in Bas-ardy, as they are in other civil cases.\n(.Pate\u2019s case, Busb. 244; State v. McIntosh, 64 N. 0. Rep. 607, cited and approved.)\nProceeding- in Bastardy, tried at Pall Term, 1874, of Wilkes Superior Court, before his Honor, Mitchell, J.\nOn the trial of an issue as to the paternity of the child, the defendant offered in evidence the deposition of a witness who was too sick to attend the Court. The reading of the deposition was objected to by the Solicitor, which objection was sustained by the Court.\nThere was a verdict against the defendant. Judgment and appeal.\nScott c\u00a7 Caldwell, for defendant.\nAttorney General Hargrove, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 431,
  "last_page_order": 432
}