{
  "id": 11278890,
  "name": "STATE v. ARNOLD PARISH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parish",
  "decision_date": "1880-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "613",
  "last_page": "614",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 N.C. 613"
    }
  ],
  "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": "74 N. C., 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682153
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0157-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8695537
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C., 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694160
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0305-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682153
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0157-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8695537
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C., 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694160
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0305-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2729,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.239720748489148e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6076149613355837
    },
    "sha256": "6d2164213470cedee829bee59da38e6ea16d6ce17cb779721be44de6c2e6cf5e",
    "simhash": "1:2596e1389251cb0f",
    "word_count": 461
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:10.009637+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ARNOLD PARISH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, C. J.\nWe sustain the correctness of the ruling of the court. Such testimony by itself and unconnected with evidence of the defendant\u2019s non-intercourse during the interval necessary to his being the father, or other fact tending to disprove the charge, was held to be insufficient to-overcome the statutory presumption, and by itself incompetent when offered for that purpose, in the case- of the State v. Bennett, 75 N. C., 305, and State v. Britt, 78 N. C., 439, and when offered to impeach the credit of the witness, the matter of the enquiry was held to be collateral and her answer conclusive. State v. Patterson, 74 N. C., 157.\nThe jurisdiction iu bastardy proceedings is vested by a recent statute (acts 1879, ch. 92,)) exclusively in a justice of the peace, except as to such as were pending at the time of its passage in the superior, criminal, or inferior courts as in the present case.\nThere is no error and this will be certified to the court, below.\nPer Curiam;. No error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Mr. T. M. Argo, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ARNOLD PARISH.\n\u00bfBastardy \u2014 Evidence.\nOn trial of a bastardy proceeding, -evidence (by itself and -tmeonneeie\u20ac with, any fact tending .to disprove the charge against the defendant) that the prosecutrix had -sexual intercourse with persons.other than, the defendant about the time the ehild was begotten, is not sufficient to -rebut the statutory presumption created \u201cby the -oath of the woman, and is incompetent. And where, upon examination, the proseeutrix denies such intercourse, the matter being collateral, her answer is conclusive, and it is not error to rejeet the .evidence when offered to impeach her credit. (Justices of the peace now have exclusive;] urisdietion in s\u00abeh eases, under-the aet of 1879, ch. 92.)\n(State v. Bennett, 75 N. C., 305; State v. Britt, 78 N. C., 439; State v. Patterson, 74 N. C., 157, cited and approved.)\nPROCEEDING- in Bastardy, tried At Spring Term,'1880, of .Johnston Superior Court, before Eure, J.\nUpon the trial of the issue the mother of the ehild was introduced as .a witness ifor the .-state and testified as to .the paternity of the-child and the- time when it was begotten by the defendant. She was- asked if she had not been before-criminally intimate with several men whose names were mentioned, and especially with one Tom. Carroll abo-ut and \"just before the time stated when the child was begotten. These questions were answered in the negative, and the defendant\u2019s counsel proposed to prove the sexual intercourse with these persons, and more particularly with Carroll* which had been denied. The testimony was rejected and the exception to this, ruling is the only point presented in the appeal of defendant.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nMr. T. M. Argo, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0613-01",
  "first_page_order": 635,
  "last_page_order": 636
}