1 S.E. 685 (N.C. 1887), State v. Ballard

Citation:1 S.E. 685, 97 N.C. 443
Opinion Judge:DAVIS, J.
Party Name:STATE v. BALLARD.
Attorney:The Attorney General, for the State. P. D. Walker, for defendant.
Case Date:March 28, 1887
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 685

1 S.E. 685 (N.C. 1887)

97 N.C. 443

STATE

v.

BALLARD.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 28, 1887

Appeal from Anson county. Indictment for larceny.

On the trial of defendant for larceny, the prosecuting witness was asked on cross-examination if he had not gone to defendant's house, and finding him absent left a message with his wife. He denied leaving such message, and defendant's wife was called and asked if the witness had not left such a message, but she was not allowed to answer the question. Held, that the answer was properly excluded, as the examination, instead of being general, related to particulars, which were likely to distract the mind of the jury from the real issue.

Page 686

The Attorney General, for the State.

P. D. Walker, for defendant.

DAVIS, J.

This was an indictment for larceny of growing crops, tried before GILMER, J., at September term, 1886, of Anson superior court. The indictment charged that the defendant, "one peck of corn, of the value of sixpence, the property of A. B. Wheeless, then and there standing and remaining ungathered in a certain field of the said A. B. Wheeless, there situated, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away," etc.

Robert A. Carter, a witness for the state, testified that he had employed three members of the bar to assist the solicitor in the trial, and that he had paid them for their services; that he had no interest in the property alleged to have been stolen by the defendant; and that the owner of the alleged stolen property had declined to prosecute this indictment. He was asked by the defendant's counsel if he had not gone to the defendant's house, about the time the indictment was found, carrying with him a double-barrel shotgun, and, finding that the defendant was not at home, if he had not said to the defendant's wife that, if the Ballards (meaning to include the defendant) did not get off from the land they were then on, he would put them all in jail. In answer to this question, he said he did go to the defendant's house with the shotgun, and, finding the defendant absent from his house, he left a message with the defendant's wife which was as follows: "Tell your husband [meaning the defendant] he must get off the land which I claim and he now holds." He further stated that the land claimed was then in suit between the witness (Carter) and W. K. Ballard. The wife of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP