{
  "id": 8691780,
  "name": "STATE and F. E. FOWLER v. ELIAS ROSE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rose",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "239",
  "last_page": "240",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 239"
    }
  ],
  "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": 99,
    "char_count": 1014,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.466952242803772e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3984852012607685
    },
    "sha256": "36a5579edceb29013c15b01281dfcc3c2e443edf4b7ba0f8f64ed2857a8e6bae",
    "simhash": "1:970f46897fe95df7",
    "word_count": 178
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE and F. E. FOWLER v. ELIAS ROSE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThere is no error in the order appealed from. Where a child is born in wedlock, the law presumes it to be legitimate; and this presumption can only be removed by-proof of impossibility of access or impotency of the husband. This will be certified, that the proceedings may be quashed.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Hargrove, for the State.",
      "A. M. Lems, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE and F. E. FOWLER v. ELIAS ROSE.\nWllei\u2019S a child is born ih wedlock the law presumes it to be legitimate, and the presumption can only be removed by proof of impossibility of ac\u00ab cess, or impotency of the hdsband.\nPROCEEDING in Bastardy tried before Watts, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of Johnson Superior Court.\nThe defendant was recognised to appear at Spring Term, 1876, When he moved the Court to quash the proceeding, and in support of the motion introduced evidence showing that at the time of the birth of the child the prosecutrix was a married woman.\nThe Court allowed the motion and the State appealed.\nAttorney General Hargrove, for the State.\nA. M. Lems, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0239-01",
  "first_page_order": 247,
  "last_page_order": 248
}