{
  "id": 8696657,
  "name": "STATE v. ANTHONY MEACHAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Meacham",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "477",
  "last_page": "478",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.C. 477"
    }
  ],
  "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": 147,
    "char_count": 2432,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.415,
    "sha256": "ebd32d90cdb0c596e9d35e13e7c6b4d06380123478c7719c15e75ce22c388429",
    "simhash": "1:a8bb54228786546b",
    "word_count": 438
  },
  "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. ANTHONY MEACHAM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nFresh pork cut up and unsalted being found in the house of defendant, and the question being whether it was his own?Jmeat or whether he had stolen, the hog out of which it was made, and there being no evidence tending-to show that he had stolen the hog out of which it was made, the defendant introduced two of the members of his family who swore that the defendant had killed one of his own hogs for pork the day before. His Honor instructed the jury that there was no evidence that the meat found was the meat of the defendant. In this there was error.\nError.\nPer Curiam. Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for tlie State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ANTHONY MEACHAM.\nIndictment--Lareeny \u2014 Evidence\u2014Judge's Charge.\n'\u2022On a trial for larceny, where the defendant who was charged with stealing a hog contended that certain pork found in his house was _part of a hog of his own; and two of his children testified that the defendant had killed a hog of his own the day before the pork was found, it was error for the Court to instruct the jury \u2018\u2019that there was no evidence that the hog was the property of any one except the prosecutor.\u201d\nINDICTMENT for Larceny, tried at Fall Term, 1877, of Richmond Superior Court, before Seymour, J.\nThe defendant was charged with stealing a hog, and that part of the case bearing upon the point decided by this Court, is as follows; \u2014 \u201c The defendant contended that the pork (which was found in defendant\u2019s house by virtue of a .search warrant obtained by the prosecutor) was part of a hog of his own, and introduced two of his children who testified that he had killed a hog of his own the day before.\u201d His Honor charged the jury that they must be satisfied that the pork found in defendant\u2019s possession was stolen, that defendant was connected with the stealing, and that the stolen hog was the one lost by the prosecutor. After retiring the jury came into Court for further instructions; and.one of the jury stated that they had agreed upon the two first points, but that one of them doubted whether the hog was proved to be the property of the prosecutor. In reply His Honor stated that the question was one of fact which they must determine, and after recapitulating the evidence, .added; \u201cAnd there is no evidence that the hog was the property of any one except the prosecutor.\u201d To this last remark the defendant excepted. Verdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.\nAttorney General, for tlie State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0477-01",
  "first_page_order": 493,
  "last_page_order": 494
}