8 S.E. 814 (N.C. 1889), State v. Ward

Citation:8 S.E. 814, 103 N.C. 419
Opinion Judge:DAVIS, J.
Party Name:STATE v. WARD.
Attorney:W. A. Dunn, for appellant. T. F. Davidson, Atty. Gen., and R. B. Peebles, for the State.
Case Date:February 25, 1889
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Page 814

8 S.E. 814 (N.C. 1889)

103 N.C. 419




Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 25, 1889

A statement made by a witness before trial may be shown to corroborate his testimony, where an attempt is made to impeach him.

Page 815

W. A. Dunn, for appellant.

T. F. Davidson, Atty. Gen., and R. B. Peebles, for the State.


Indictment for burglary, tried before McRAE, J., at January term, 1889, of the superior court of Northampton county. The indictment contains two counts,--the first charging the burglarious entering with intent to kill and murder; and the second, with intent to steal.

It was in evidence that on the night of the 11th of January, 1889, the dwelling-house of W. H. Farmer was entered about midnight, by breaking through the window, and a most violent assault made upon the said Farmer, the burglar using a razor; and after a desperate struggle, in which the said Farmer was cut in several places with the razor, the burglar made his escape, having been first severely wounded by Farmer, who had wrested the razor from him, and inflicted the wounds therewith. There was much evidence tending, overwhelmingly, to identify the prisoner as the burglar.

The witness W. H. Farmer, whose testimony is sent up with the record, details with minuteness and at much length the occurrence and incidents connected therewith, in which, among other things, he said that he did not recognize the person who broke into his house, but knew that he was a colored man from his hair, and that a hat was left in the room by the burglar, which was afterwards identified as the prisoner's; that the prisoner had been at his house about 10 o'clock on the night of the burglary, to see him, as prisoner said, about some cotton which he had promised to deliver, but had failed to do; "that he [prisoner] did not come but once that night; that I [he] recognized him. He had been there four or five times at night inside of two weeks, and once in the day he came to the store. (The prisoner objected to the testimony that the prisoner had been there previous to the night of the alleged burglary. Objection overruled. Prisoner excepted.)" This constitutes the first exception.

One Lewis Jordan, a witness for the state, testified that he saw the prisoner the day after the burglary, and details what occurred, and, among other things, that the prisoner said one...

To continue reading