{
  "id": 8683228,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM H. DEAVER and another",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Deaver",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "555",
  "last_page": "556",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. 555"
    }
  ],
  "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": 186,
    "char_count": 2235,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.421,
    "sha256": "ef9e41d620ba8b3541057eaa8d4f7617c5a9263a0f9872d0cf6e8f90148f52f2",
    "simhash": "1:bae3d4301d6dd5de",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "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. WILLIAM H. DEAVER and another."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rrade, J.\nThe principles involved in this case are the same as those in State v. Hoskins, ante, 530, and the decision is the same, and the opinion in that. case will be certified as the opinion in this case.\nThere is no error.\nPee Cubxam. Judgment affirmed.\nBynum, J.\nhaving been of counsel in the Court below, did not sit on the hearing of Moore v. Valentine, ante, 188.\nIn paragraph \u201c 2 \u201d of syllabus in Long v. Long, ante, 301\"' read * * * \u201c was procured by the fraud of the defendant in not disclosing the fact of her then pregnancy, &c.\u201d\nIn paragraph \u201c2\u201d of syllabus in Churchill v. Lee, ante, 341, read, \u201cAlthough the affirmative of the issues, &c.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rrade, J. Bynum, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Same counsel as in State v. Hoskins, ante, 530."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM H. DEAVER and another.\nWhere the Conrt below upon motion of a defendant (a U. S. officer) in an indictment for conspiracy, ordered the removal of the cause to a Federal Court in pursuance of \u00a7 643 of the Revised Statutes of the United-States ; Held, not to be error.\n(State v. Hoskins, ante, 530, cited and approved.)\nMotion for tbe Removal of a Cause upon petition of defendants, made in pursuance of the United States Revised Statutes, \u00a7 643, heard at Spring Term, 1877, of Rutherford-Superior Court, before Cloud, J.\nThe defendant, Deaver, a. United States Deputy Collector, and the defendant, J. W. Green, a. United States Commissioner, were indicted at Fall Term, 1876, of said Court, for a-conspiracy to extort money from one Henry Summit, who' was arrested at the instance of these defendants and carried before said Commissioner, to answer an alleged charge of\u2019 defrauding the revenue of the United States in having in his possession manufactured tobacco, without the same being, stamped as required by law. When the case was called, the defendants, moved the Court to order its Clerk to send to the United States Circuit Court for the Western District of North Carolina, a transcript of the record in obedience to a Writ of' Certiorari issued therefrom. This motion was resisted on the ground that the Act of Congress authorizing the removal \u00a9f a cause of this character was unconstitutional. His Honor being of a contrary opinion allowed the motion, and Montr ffomery, Solicitor for the State, appealed.\nSame counsel as in State v. Hoskins, ante, 530."
  },
  "file_name": "0555-01",
  "first_page_order": 569,
  "last_page_order": 570
}