{
  "id": 8684387,
  "name": "J. C. L. HARRIS. Solicitor, ex parte",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ex parte Harris",
  "decision_date": "1875-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "65",
  "last_page": "66",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 N.C. 65"
    }
  ],
  "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": "7 Ired. 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684087
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/29/0048-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ired., 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2611,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.179781866584574e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5091632755423192
    },
    "sha256": "f047d973e05b4935758de11da05a982af7b4ecc51b5772d446fc3d81e94cac08",
    "simhash": "1:42fb69c47eacdb6d",
    "word_count": 460
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:27.517682+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. C. L. HARRIS. Solicitor, ex parte."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ByN\u00fcM, J.\nThis case is governed by the decision of this Court in the State v. Adair, 68 N. C. Rep., 68, which is so-directly in point, that his Honor must have overlooked it or he would have allowed the motion. It is there held that the act of 1S68, Bat. Rev., chap. 54, sec. 40, applies only to parties strictly so called, and not to the State, upon the maxim that general statutes do not bind the sovereign unless expressly mentioned in them. State v. Garland, 7 Ired., 58. The prisoner by our existing law is a competent witness, and the State is therefore entitled to his evidence, which may be procured in the way prescribed by law. Neither the Court below or this Court has the right to presume that the officers of the law, chosen to represent the public justice of the State, will abuse that high trust by either an inhuman or injudicious exercise of their powers.\nThe case does not present a fit occasion for the animadversion contained in his Honor\u2019s judgment.\nThere is error.\nPee: O\u00faeiam.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ByN\u00fcM, J. Pee: O\u00faeiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harris, Solicitor, for the petition, argued :"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. C. L. HARRIS. Solicitor, ex parte.\nOne who has been convicted of murder, and is under sentence of death, is a competent witness; and the Solicitor for the State is entitled to a habeas corpus to bring such condemned prisoner into Court, for the purpose of testifying before the grand jury.\nChapter 54, sec. 40, Bat. Rev. applies only to parties strictly so called, and not to the State.\n(State v. Adair, 68 N. C. Rep. 68; State v. Garland, 7 Ired. 48, cited and approved.\nPeutioN for a habeas corpus, heard before \"Watts, J., at Spring Term, 1875, of NoetiiaMptoN Superior Court.\nThe Solicitor filed the following affidavit:\n* * * \u201c that Cornelius Williams is now in the jail of this county, having been convicted at Fall Term, 1874, of this Court, of the murder of one Samuel Presson ; that said Williams appealed to the Supreme Court, and that the judgment of this Court was affirmed. That said Williams is now under sentence of death for the said mnrder, and that said Williams is \u00e1 material witness for the State in a case of murder to be enquired into by the Grand Jury at this Term.\u201d * * Wherefore he prayed that the said Williams might be brought into Court to testify, &c.\nHis Honor, after deliberation, gave judgment refusing the prayer of the petition. From this judgment the Solicitor appealed.\nHarris, Solicitor, for the petition, argued :\nThat the Constitution prescribes no disfranchisement as to-witness. That the act of 1866 makes Williams a competent, witness; and that the act of 1868, chap. 116, sec. 37, does not bind the State. See t\u00e9tate v. Adair, 68 N. C. Rep., 68."
  },
  "file_name": "0065-01",
  "first_page_order": 73,
  "last_page_order": 74
}