{
  "id": 8695982,
  "name": "STATE v. PICKETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pickett",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "458",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.C. 458"
    }
  ],
  "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": 175,
    "char_count": 2447,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.99727332195224e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5030372427118338
    },
    "sha256": "2c1164bad14579c77b6763e085c82eb8e3e74561559ad111480ecb23ec2822e4",
    "simhash": "1:c8fad8f6968aa1cc",
    "word_count": 428
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:04:18.240606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. PICKETT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe indictment charges \u201cthat the defendant pretended that he was the sole and only owner of said mule, and that there was no lien or other ownership existing thereon.\u201d There is certainly no crime in pretending that the mule was his, because it may all be true. Bufc.it is also charged that he \u201cdesignedly, unlawfully and falsely pretended\u201d it. It is not specified in what the falsehood consisted. Was he not the \u201csole owner?\u201d Was there some other '\u2022 ownership, \u201d or partnership? Was there some \u201c lien \u201d on it? Or in ivhat else did the falsehood consist ?\nThe precedents are to the effect, that the indictment must not only charge that he falsely pretended that the mule was his, but it must contain the negative averment that it was \u25a0not his. \u201cWhereas in truth and in fact the said Joseph Pickett was not then the owner of said mule &c., \u201d is the form in Arehbold\u2019s Criminal Pleading. And it is held that the indictment is insufficient without it. Rex. v. Perrett, 2 M. & W. 379. There is error. This will be certified to the \u2022end that the judgment may be arrested.\nError.\nPer Curiam. Judgment arrested.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Messrs A. T.k J. London, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. PICKETT.\nFalse Pretence \u2014 Sufficiency of Indictment.\nAn indictment for obtaining goods, &c., under false pretences must charge not only the false pretence, but must also contain the negative averment that the pretence was actually untrue.\nIkdictmeNT for obtaining a horse under Ealse Pretences tried at August Term, 1877, of New IIanoveb, Criminal Court, before Meares, J.\nThe bill of indictment was as follows; The jurors &c., present that Joseph Pickett &c., desiring to purchase a horse of Charles B. Eutch,agreed to pay him the sum of eighty dollars; $30 cash and the balance lie would secure by a mortgage on a mule to which the title was perfectly good, and of which \u25a0 the said Joseph Pickett was the sole and only owner, as lie alleged, and also on the horse &c. And the said Pickett did then and there designedly, unlawfully and falsely pretend to said Eutch, that he said Pickett was the sole and only owner of said mule, and that there was no lien or other ownership existing thereon, well knowing the same to be false, by color of which said false pretence, he said Pickett did then and there obtain of said Futcb, one horse of the value of &c., with intent &e. Verdict of Guilty. Motion in arrest overruled. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nMessrs A. T.k J. London, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0458-01",
  "first_page_order": 474,
  "last_page_order": 475
}