{
  "id": 11275415,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN PURIFY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Purify",
  "decision_date": "1882-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "681",
  "last_page": "682",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.C. 681"
    }
  ],
  "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., 539",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696368
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/79/0539-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Jones, 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        1961094
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/53/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N. C., 539",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696368
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/79/0539-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2111,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0373690251165076e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8550338262964365
    },
    "sha256": "d844daafd20c1d7440f6e139cde6b7a95e0dd4bdcece96ad4be0cbf6d83c7e70",
    "simhash": "1:932fd7a870471433",
    "word_count": 359
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:32.041451+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN PURIFY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin, J.\nIt is impossible to doubt the correctness of the judgment of the court below.\nThe charge preferred against the defendant in the indictment is the obstruction of \u201c a certain common and public highway leading from the dwelling house, &c., to the public road, &c.,\u201d whereas the proof offered was, that he had obstructed \u201ca certain private cart-way, leading from the dwelling house, &., to the public road,\u201d &c.\nEven if we should concede that an indictment would lie for obstructing a private cart-way \u2014 which according to the authorities seems more than doubtful\u2014 still it must be truly charged, and not, as in this instance, as a public highway.\nA public highway is one established by public authority, and kept in order by the public, under the direction of the law ; or else it is one used generally by the public for twenty years, and over which the public authorities have exerted control, and for the reparation of which they are responsible. State v. McDaniel, 8 Jones, 284; Boyden v. Achenbach, 79 N. C., 539.\nA cart-way is as distinct as possible. Indeed, it is a way established by law for a person who has - not the benefit of a public highway, and for that' reason alone. Bat. Rev., ch. 104, \u00a7 38.\nBecause of the variance between the allegations made in the indictment and the proof offered in support of them, the defendant was clearly entitled to an acquittal.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN PURIFY\nIndictment\u2014 Obstructing Highway.\nWhere one was indicted for obstructing a \u201cpublic highway,\u201d ard the proof was that he obstructed a \u201cprivate cartway;\u201d Held a variance. Whether an indictment will lie for obstructing a private cartway\u2014 Quaere.\n(State v. MeDaniel, S Jones, 284; Boyden v. Achenbach, 79 N. C., 539, cited and approved.)\nIndictment for a' nuisance in obstructing a highway, tried at Fall Term, 1881, of Chaven Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.\nUpon the special verdict found by the jury, His Honor held that the defendant was not guilty as charged in the bill of indictment, and the solicitor for the state appealed.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0681-01",
  "first_page_order": 697,
  "last_page_order": 698
}