{
  "id": 8683124,
  "name": "STATE v. MARTIN LILES and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Liles",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "496",
  "last_page": "497",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. 496"
    }
  ],
  "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": "74 N. C. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682621
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0316-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1639,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3061430802636296e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6233875025146254
    },
    "sha256": "e3b4a2fb985753d81f721d883a2761728dff04726390161ab902e5cb87d5d36d",
    "simhash": "1:c727be3d939b32ed",
    "word_count": 297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:21.915598+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. MARTIN LILES and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EaiRCLOTH, J.\nThe defendants were indicted and on being \u25a0called to answer the charge, moved to quash the indictment \u2022on the ground that one of the grand jurors who presented the bill, at the time he was drawn as juror, had a suit pending and at issue in the Superior Court of the same County. 'The motion was allowed and the Solicitor appealed. We .-sustain the order of His Honor, and hold.that the juror was \u25a0disqualified simply because the law is so written. Bat. Rev. uh. 17, \u00a7 229, (g).\nIn such cases the objection must be taken in apt time as was done in the present instance. State v. Griffice, 74 N. C. 316.\nThere is no error. Let this be certified, &c. '\nPjerCubiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EaiRCLOTH, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. MARTIN LILES and others.\nIndictment \u2014 Disqualification of Juror.\nWhere an indictment was quashed upon the ground that one of the grand jurors who found the bill was a party to an action pending and at issue in the Superior Court; Held, not to be error. (Bat. Rev. ch. 17, \u00a7 229 (g))\n(State v. Griffice, 74 N. 0. 316, cited and approved.)\nINDICTMENT \u2019for Larceny tried at Spring Term,' 1877, of Anson Superior Court, before McKoy, J.\nThe defendants moved to quash the indictment on the ground that one of the grand jurors who found the bill \u00a1against them was disqualified by Bat. Rev. ch. 17, \u00a7 229 (g) which is as follows; \u201cIf any of the jurors drawn have a suit pending and at issue in the Supefior Court, the scrolls with their names must be returned into partition No. 1 of the jury box.\u201d\nHis Honor allowed the motion and Pemberton, Solicitor for the State, appealed.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0496-01",
  "first_page_order": 510,
  "last_page_order": 511
}