{
  "id": 8694142,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN E. SCOTT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Scott",
  "decision_date": "1879-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "365",
  "last_page": "367",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 N.C. 365"
    }
  ],
  "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": 206,
    "char_count": 2501,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0090121183135988e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7440097858987146
    },
    "sha256": "65127672191293c76fadd47eb4d581ac60ec9acd4118b1b172058ca74158fc63",
    "simhash": "1:103001e0ab77216f",
    "word_count": 428
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:15.742007+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN E. SCOTT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, C. J.\nThe record sets out several exceptions taken during the progress of the trial which will be noticed as follows:\n1. The court refused to continue the cause on the defendant\u2019s affidavit and ordered the trial: The refusal to continue a cause is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the presiding judge, and no appeal lies from the exercise of that discretion.\n2. During the cross-examination of the prosecutrix by the defendant\u2019s counsel and while she was detailing what passed between ,her mother and herself immediately after the assault, she testified that her mother asked, \u2014 \u201c What is the matter, has he done anything to you ? and that she did not answet at first because\u201d \u2014 at this point she was stopped by the counsel who was about to propound another question, when His Honor interposed, remarking, \u201c she ought to be allowed to tell why she did not answer her mother at first,'\u201d and put the question to her himself, when the witness said\u2014 \u201c I was so scared I could not answer. I almost immediately, however, and in defendant\u2019s presence, told my mother what had occurred.\u201d\nWe think the judge properly interposed and gave the witness an opportunity to make the explanation and finish what she was then prevented from saying. This was an exercise of that control which a judge has over proceedings conducted before him, and necessary to the proper administration of the law. He would have been derelict in duty had-he failed to interfere and prevent the cutting off an unfinished sentence. The other exceptions are unsupported by the record, and as the judge says in passing on them, have no foundation in the facts of the case.\nThe exceptions are overruled. There is no error. This will be certified to the end that judgment on the verdict be pronounced according to law.\nPer Curiam. No error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Mr. T. II. Sutton, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN E. SCOTT.\nAppeal \u2014 Trial\u2014Examination of Witnesses.\n1. \u00edfo appeal lies from a refusal of a fudge to continue a cause.\n2. Where on cross-examination a witness was proceeding to answer a question and was stopped by counsel who proposed to aslt another, and 'the fudge interposed and allowed the witness to finish the reply; Held ' not to be error.\nINDxctment for an Assault with intent to commit rape, Iried at Spring Term, 1878, of Cumberland Superior Court, before Moore, J.\nThe facts necessary to an understanding of the case appear in the opinion. Verdict of guilty, judgment, appeal by defendant.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nMr. T. II. Sutton, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0365-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 383
}