{
  "id": 8684573,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN RINEHART",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rinehart",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "58",
  "last_page": "59",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 58"
    }
  ],
  "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": 200,
    "char_count": 3027,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.458523723746264e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6568033503111571
    },
    "sha256": "42bf7795555547b451e56ca9988a096d9da9861c79fa5e460dbba0277a467e1c",
    "simhash": "1:fb3c17e0a84cbea6",
    "word_count": 534
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN RINEHART."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bynum, J.\nThe prisoner was tried and found guilty of murder, by the jury. His counsel, in the Court below, moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the indictment was insufficient, in that it omitted the word \u201cwound\u201d in a material part of it, and thus not showing how the deceased came to his death.\nThe indictment is in the usual form and regular in all re spects, except that in the conclusion, after alleging that the prisoner discharged his gun in and upon the deceased, it proceeds thus: \u201c giving to him, the said Joseph Turner, then and there, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, so as aforesaid, discharged aDd shot out of the rifle gun aforesaid, by force of the gunpowder aforesaid, by the said John Rineheart, in and upon the back of, and a little above the hip of him, the said Joseph Turner, one mortal wound,, of the depth of six inches and the breadth of one inch, of which said mortal (omitting the word \u201c wound\u201d) he, the said Joseph Turner, then and there instantly died.\u201d\nIt is clear that the omission of the word \u201c wound \u201d in this place is not material, inasmuch as the wound had just before been described and charged to have been a \u201c mortal wound.\u201d It would not, therefore, have impaired the sufficiency of the indictment, if it had ended after the words \u201c one inch,\u201d in the following manner: of which the said Joseph Turner then and there instantly died.\u201d Certainly any such irregularity is cured by the statute. Bat. Rev., chap. 33, sec. 60, \u201cand the same shall not be quashed, nor the judgment thereon stayed, by reason of any informality or refinement, if in the bill, or proceeding, sufficient matter appears to enable the Court to proceed to judgment.\u201d\nThe charge of his Honor to the jury was correct, and the record, on examination, containing no error to the prejudice of the prisoner, the judgment must be affirmed.\nThere is no error. This will be certified.\nBee. Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bynum, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Hargrove, for the State.",
      "No counsel in this Court for the prisoner."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN RINEHART.\nAn indictment which concludes thus: \u201cgiving to him, the said J. T., then and there, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, so as aforesaid discharged and shot out of the rifle gun aforesaid, by force of the gunpowder aforesaid, by the said J. R., in and upon the back of, and a little above the hip of him, the said J. T., one mortal wound of the depth of six inches and of the breadth of one inch, of which tire said mortal (omitting the word \u201c wound\u201d) he, the said J. T., then and there instantly died,\u201d is suf. fleient, and the judgment thereon should not be arrested under sec. 60, chap. 33, Bat. Rev.\nIndictmeNt, for Murder, tried before Watts, J., at Spring-Term, 1876, of Madison Superior Court.\nThere was a verdict of \u201cguilt}*-,\u201d whereupon the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment. The motion was overruled, and judgment pronounced, and the prisoner appealed.\nThe other facts necessary to an understanding of the case, as decided in this Court, are found in the opinion of Justice Bynum.\nAttorney General Hargrove, for the State.\nNo counsel in this Court for the prisoner."
  },
  "file_name": "0058-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 67
}