{
  "id": 8695186,
  "name": "STATE v. SEWELL GILLESPIE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gillespie",
  "decision_date": "1879-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "396",
  "last_page": "398",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 N.C. 396"
    }
  ],
  "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": "4 Barb., 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Barb.",
      "case_ids": [
        5777355
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/barb/4/0151-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2921,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.431,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1711208885165258e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5863934538268447
    },
    "sha256": "0e64a8f4c6f8f0ce9d5449406f78d834bbc8ac8cf8c3b5e0a140c42f298134cc",
    "simhash": "1:d3da1340a044acca",
    "word_count": 505
  },
  "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. SEWELL GILLESPIE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ashe, J.\nThe defendant has been convicted for a violation of the provisions of Bat. Rev., ch. 32, \u00a7 66, which makes it a misdemeanor, \u201c by means of any forged or counterfeit paper in writing or in print, or by any false token or other false pretence whatsoever, to obtain from any person or corporation within the state, any money, goods or property, or other thing of value, or any bank note, check,\u201d &c. There was a motion in arrest of judgment, motion overruled, and judgment pronounced, from which the defendant appealed. Mr. Bishop, in his valuable work on criminal procedure in treating of the subject of cheats and false pretences (vol. 2, \u00a7 139,) says, \u2014 \u201c whether the value of the property should be stated in the indictment depends upon the law which fixes the punishmentand again in \u00a7 676, \u2014 \u201cthat when the degree of the punishment depends in any measure upon the value of the thing stolen, the indictment must state its value; in other cases it need not.\u201d There are no degrees of criminality in the offence charged in this indictment, and no other punishment can be inflicted than that prescribed in Bat. Rev., ch. 32, \u00a7 29. There is no necessity for alleging the value with the view of fixing the punishment to be imposed.\nThe statute under which the indictment is framed does not require the property obtained to be of any particular value; nor do we think the words \u201c or other thing of value \u201d were used by the law makers to qualify the words immediately preceding \u2014 \u201c-money, goods, property\u201d \u2014 but only to enlarge the class of personal things which they were making it penal to obtain by false pretences. Such was the construction put upon the New York statute which is very similar to ours. The words there used were \u201cmoney, personal property, or valuable thing;\u201d and it was there held in People v. Stetson, 4 Barb., 151, that the statute under which the indictment was framed did not require that the property obtained should be of any particular value. The words are, any money, personal property, or valuable thing; therefore it need not be alleged in the indictment. 2 Bish. Cr. Pro., \u00a7 139. There is no error. Let this be certified to the court below that further proceedings may be had according to law.\nPer Curiam. No error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ashe, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the state.",
      "Mr. R. M. Allison, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. SEWELL GILLESPIE.\nFalse. Pretence \u2014 Value of Property.\nIn an indictment for obtaining goods by false pretence, no averment of the value of the property need be made.\nIndictment for obtaining goodfe under False Pretences tried at Fall Term, 1878, of Iredell Superior Court, before Gudgea\u2022, J.\nAfter a verdict of guilty the defendant\u2019s counsel moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the bill of indictment did not charge the property, alleged to have been obtained by false representations of defendant, to be of any value. The motion was refused, judgment, and the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General, for the state.\nMr. R. M. Allison, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0396-01",
  "first_page_order": 412,
  "last_page_order": 414
}