{
  "id": 8687383,
  "name": "STATE v. WEBSTER WILLIAMS and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "134",
  "last_page": "136",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 134"
    }
  ],
  "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 Jones, 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        2086689
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/48/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Jones, 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        2086689
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/48/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2810,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7615235618593847e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8336018818085533
    },
    "sha256": "d91cbdb57b1bd883ccc9aeefc4248317d75c745f81772414534ddd8169aafed2",
    "simhash": "1:a33b5757bb2218ab",
    "word_count": 468
  },
  "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. WEBSTER WILLIAMS and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bynum, J.\nWhen the prosecutrix refused to submit to the ceremony of expulsion established by this benevolent Society, it could not be lawfully inflicted. Rules of discipline for this and all voluntary associations must conform to the laws. If the act of tying this woman would have been a battery had the parties concerned not been members of the Society of \u201c Good Samaritans,\u201d it is not the less a battery because they were all members of that humane institution. The punishment inflicted upon the person of the prosecutrix was wilful, violent and against her consent, and thus contained all the elemenis of a wanton breach of the peace. Bell v. Hansly, 3 Jones, 131.\nThere is no error. This will be certified.\nPee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bynum, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Hargrove, for the State.",
      "Mullen & Moore and Walter Clark, for the prisoners."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WEBSTER WILLIAMS and others.\nBuies of discipline for all voluntary associations must conform to the lays. Henee-, when a member of such association-refuses to-submit to the cere*-mony of expulsion established by the-same, which ceremony involved a battery, it cannot be lawfully inflicted.\n(The case of 'Bell v. IBmsley-, 3 Jones, 131, cited and! approved! )\u25a0\nIndictment for an Assault and Battery, tried before Moore,, J., at Spring Term, 1876,. of Martin Superior Court.\nThe defendants and the prosecutrix were members of a, benevolent society in Hamiton, N. C;, known as the \u201c Good Samaritans,\u201d which Society had certain rules and ceremonies known as the ceremonies of initiation' into and expulsion from the Society.\nThe prosecutrix, having been remiss in some of her cbli-gations, and having been called upon to explain, became ' violent.\nThe defendants with others, proceeded to perform the ceremony of expulsion, which consisted in suspending her from the wall by means of a cord. fastened around her waist. This ceremony had been performed upon others theretefore, in the presence of the prosecutrix. She resisted to the extent of her ability.\nThere was conflicting evidence as to whether they lifted her from the floor or intended to treat her differently from others who had been expelled, and it was shown that as soon as she cried out that the cord hurt her, she was released and fainted immediately. Her dress was tom from her.\nThe defendants\u2019 counsel contended that if the defendants only intended to perform the usual ceremony of expulsion arid were actuated by no other motive, and did not intend to hurt her, they were not guilty. That in order to commit a crime there must be an unlawful act, coupled with a vicious will.\nHis Honor held that in any view of .the case, if the defendants tied the cord around the waist of the prosecutrix as stated, they were guilty.\n' There was a verdict of guilty and judgment thereupon. The defendants appealed.\nAttorney General Hargrove, for the State.\nMullen & Moore and Walter Clark, for the prisoners."
  },
  "file_name": "0134-01",
  "first_page_order": 142,
  "last_page_order": 144
}