{
  "id": 11274308,
  "name": "STATE v. JOSEPH BARBEE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Barbee",
  "decision_date": "1885-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "498",
  "last_page": "499",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "93 N.C. 498"
    }
  ],
  "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": "63 N. C., 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278353
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0556-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 2128,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.728108280744093e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4545909819452794
    },
    "sha256": "0508b61d35099e27eba9892f93907b6dcf29dbfa949b203ed52004ec0b6373a3",
    "simhash": "1:5649a46a356c267e",
    "word_count": 372
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:31:05.515433+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOSEPH BARBEE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ashe, J.\nThe jury found the defendant guilty. The Court pronounced judgment, and the defendant appealed.\nThe defendant, on the trial, took seven exceptions to the rulings of his Honor in admitting and rejecting evidence, no one of which was tenable.\nIn the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d it is stated that the defendant moved to quash the indictment. When this motion was made, if made at all, does not appear. It certainly does not appear in the record proper that such a motion was ever made. The defendant was twice put on his trial \u2014 first at the-Term, 188-, of same Court, when there was a mistrial, and then at the July Term, 1885, when he was convicted and appealed to this Court. At each of these terms of the Court, the defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Strictly, a motion to quash must be made on the arraignment and before pleading, and will never be entertained after verdict. State v. Jarvis, 63 N. C., 556. But conceding it to have been made in apt time, there is no ground that we have been able to discern in the record for quashing the indictment or arresting the judgment.\nWhen defendants appeal merely for delay, it is very desirable that they should content themselves with one exception, which wilTanswer their purpose just as well as seven or more.\nThere is no error. Let this be certified to the Superior Court of Wake county, that the case may be proceeded with according to law.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ashe, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General for the State.",
      "Messrs. A. M. Lewis & Son and J. C. L. Harris, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOSEPH BARBEE.\nIndictment \u2014 Motion to Quash.\n1. A motion to quash should be made on arraignment and before pleading; it will \u25a0never be entertained after verdict.\n2. It is very desirable that when parties to actions appeal for delay merely they should content themselves with one exception, which will answer their purpose as well as a greater number.\n(Slate v. .Jarvis, 63 N. 0., 556, cited and approved).\nThis was an INDICTMENT for larceny, tried before Clark, Judge, at July Term, 1885, Wake Superior Court.\nThe defendant was convicted, and from the judgment thereon pronounced he appealed.\nThe Attorney General for the State.\nMessrs. A. M. Lewis & Son and J. C. L. Harris, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0498-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 531
}