{
  "id": 8682390,
  "name": "STATE v. CEPHUS HUDSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hudson",
  "decision_date": "1876-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "246",
  "last_page": "247",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. 246"
    }
  ],
  "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": "3 Murph. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694328
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/7/0511-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1860,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.393,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4630874919113076e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8057288282058143
    },
    "sha256": "47cf2b710f4131e61805ef1e3870568f68081560db27da928744523a09a59f3d",
    "simhash": "1:011d41dc226b4f81",
    "word_count": 312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:39.099656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CEPHUS HUDSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Btnum, J.\nTbe defendant was indicted for an assault and 'battery, in a bill drawn in tbe ordinary form. Tbe jury for their verdict returned \u201c that the said Cephas Hudson is guilty -of shooting.\u201d Shooting at wrhat ? In what direction ? If at any human object, was that object within the carrying distance of the gun, so as to constitute an assault ? If the indictment had charged that the assault was made by shooting at the prosecutor, possibly the verdict could be sustained by the reasonable certainty of its meaning, to be obtained by construing the bill and verdict together. But the instrament contains no such charge, and the verdict standing by itself is therefore senseless, certainly it is not responsive to the indictment. The courts should never allow such absurd and irre-sponsive verdicts to be recorded. They should have the jury to correct them, so as to be in conformity to law and to present an intelligent record. State v. Arrington, 3 Murph. 511. There is error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment arrested.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Btnum, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel in this court for the defendant.",
      "Attorney General llaryrove, for tbe State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CEPHUS HUDSON.\nWhere the jury return a verdict of \u201cguilty of shooting,\u201d upon an. indictment for an assault and battery, drawn in the usual form, judgment will be arrested.\nWhether, if the bill had charged that tbe assault-was made, by shooting at the prosecutor, the verdict could be sustained, Quere ? {State v. Arrington, 3 Murphy 571, cited and approved.)\nINDICTMENT for Assault and Battery, tried before bis Honor Waits, J. at Fall Term, 1875, of tbe Superior Court of -GteaNville county.\nTbe indictment was drawn for an assault and battery in tbe usual form.\nTbe jury returned a verdict of \u201cguilty of shooting\u201d and thereupon tbe counsel for the prisoner moved tbe court in arrest of judgment.\nTbe motion was overruled and tbe defendant appealed.\nNo counsel in this court for the defendant.\nAttorney General llaryrove, for tbe State."
  },
  "file_name": "0246-01",
  "first_page_order": 256,
  "last_page_order": 257
}