{
  "id": 8698331,
  "name": "STATE v. J. A. BRYSON and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bryson",
  "decision_date": "1878-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "651",
  "last_page": "652",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 N.C. 651"
    }
  ],
  "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": "65 N. C. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1955414
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/65/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Mass. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        2035159
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/16/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N. C. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1955414
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/65/0419-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 124,
    "char_count": 1318,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31189849292371874
    },
    "sha256": "b20f5f57175249a98d529fc0f27f3ed40093f35761196e7719715204fc4c4e90",
    "simhash": "1:d717446241ae068c",
    "word_count": 210
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:15:31.489401+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. A. BRYSON and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EaiRCLOTh, J\".\nThe defendants were indicted for disturbing a religious congregation which is a common law offence,, and the\" indictment concluded contra formam statuti, and against the peace and dignity of the State. After conviction they moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that-the indictment concluded against the statute. It has often been held that this part of the conclusion is merely sur-plusage. State v. Lamb, 65 N. C. 419; Com. v. Hoxey, 16 Mass. 385; 2 Leach Cr. Law, 584; 2 Hale 190. The objection is not sustained. Let this be certified and the Supeiioi-Court will proceed according to law.-\nNo error. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EaiRCLOTh, J\"."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Mr. J. II. Merrimon, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. A. BRYSON and others.\nInclietment \u2014 Coiielusion of.\nllt'is no-ground for an arrest of judgment that an indictment charging only-a common law offence, concludes \u201c contra formam, statuti,\u201d and \u201c against the peace and dignity of the State. The conclusion against .the statute may he rejected as surplusage.\n(State v. Lamb, 65 N. C. 419, cited and approved.)\n\u2019IndiotmbNT for disturbing a Religious Congregation tried .-.at Spring Term, 1878, of Henderson Superior Court, before \u00a1Cloud,.,!.\nThere was a verdict of guilty, motion in arrest of judgment, motion overruled, and appeal by defendants.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nMr. J. II. Merrimon, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0651-01",
  "first_page_order": 667,
  "last_page_order": 668
}