{
  "id": 8688862,
  "name": "STATE v. GUS GRAHAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Graham",
  "decision_date": "1877-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "195",
  "last_page": "196",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. 195"
    }
  ],
  "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": "72 N. C. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8687581
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692337
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0256-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683295
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0646-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8687581
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0123-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1520,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.415,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20799011834280687
    },
    "sha256": "ab0fdf390d8cf0a203b948191c0b434d382d369718b2edb9325efde20b5d76b8",
    "simhash": "1:8f81e32d65f2560d",
    "word_count": 262
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. GUS GRAHAM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eynum, J.\nThe veiy question of jurisdiction here raised, lias been expressly decided by this Court so late as the January Term, 1875. State v. Cherry, 72 N. C. 123. It was there held that the Superior Court has jurisdiction of the of-fence.\nIt is to be noted, that although this case has been here twice before, by appeal of the defendant, (74 N. C. 646 and 75 N. C. 256), yet this question of jurisdiction has not been raised by him before. Such a practice, to say the least, is not encouraged by the Court. It is to be further noted, that the question of iurisdiction was not made until after it had ibeen unmistakably decided. We cannot however suppose that the counsel of the defendant, with a knowledge of that decision, advised the appeal now before us. It must have been inadvertently overlooked.\nNo error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eynum, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State",
      "No counsel for the defendant"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. GUS GRAHAM.\nJurisdiction \u2014 Indictment.\nThe Superior Courts have exclusive jurisdiction of the offence of larceny of growing crops. (Bat. Rev. ch. 32 \u00a7 20.)\u00a1\n(State v. Cherry, 72 N. C. 123, cited and approved.)\nINDICTMENT for stealing corn growing and remaining un-gathered iu a certain field, tried at Pall Term, 1876, of An-son Superior Court, before Furches, J.\nThe counsel for defendant in the Court below moved to dismiss the case upon the ground that the Superior Court fiad no jurisdiction of the offence charged in the bill of indictment. His Honor overruled the motion and the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General, for the State\nNo counsel for the defendant"
  },
  "file_name": "0195-01",
  "first_page_order": 207,
  "last_page_order": 208
}