{
  "id": 8694522,
  "name": "STATE v. TONEY BURNS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Burns",
  "decision_date": "1879-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "376",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 N.C. 376"
    }
  ],
  "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": "79 N. C., 652",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698360
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/79/0652-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N. C., 652",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698360
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/79/0652-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1472,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.403,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.785898167090779e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5323652073924001
    },
    "sha256": "cbcc8b94eb63641a17fd4f3f63654189a6bac6b21deb79c5b9795736f2b4c2af",
    "simhash": "1:cfc76f50f59f4faf",
    "word_count": 269
  },
  "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. TONEY BURNS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ashe, J.\nThere were some exceptions taken by the defendant on the trial below, but it is only necessary to notice that taken to the form of the indictment.\nThe bill of indictment does not charge that the lien was in force when the bale of cotton was disposed o\u00a3 nor to whom it was sold. For- these reasons' the bill is fatally defective, and the judgment below must be arrested. State v. Pickens, 79 N. C., 652.\nThere is error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Wake county that the defendant may be discharged.\nPek Curai-mx Errors",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ashe, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the state.",
      "Mr. T. PL. Argo, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. TONEY BURNS.\nDisposing of Property wider Mortgage.\nAn indictment for disposing of mortgaged property under the act of lS73-\u201974, ch. 31, is fatally defective, if it fails to set forth that the lien was in force at the time of sale, the party to whom sold, and the manner of disposition.\n(State, v. Pickens, 79 N. C., 652, cited and approved J\nINDICTMENT for a Misdemeanor tried at January Term, 1879-, of Wake Criminal Court, before Strong, J.\nAtNovember term, 1877, the defendant was indicted for the violation of the act of 1873-\u201974, ch. 31, in that he sold one bale of cotton upon which he had given a chattel mortgage to secure certain rent due the prosecutor. The principle on which this case was decided is the same as in State v. Pickens\u00bb 79 N. 0., 652. There was no motion in the court below t\u00a9 arrest the judgment from which defendant appealed.\nAttorney General, for the state.\nMr. T. PL. Argo, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 392,
  "last_page_order": 392
}