Dodd v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 31 July 1816 |
| Citation | 4 N.C. 471 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | DODD v. HAMILTON.—TERM, 31. |
1. Larceny cannot be committed unless the thing be taken against the will of the owner. Hence, if the thing be sent by the owner for the purpose of entrapping the taker, it will not be larceny.
2. In an action for a tort, the Court will not grant a new trial for excessive damages, unless they are grossly extravagant, or unless there is just ground to believe that the jury have acted corruptly.
APPEAL from CAMERON, J., at RUTHERFORD. It was an action of trespass, assault and battery, and false imprisonment.
Joseph Hamilton, a justice of the peace, came to the house of his brother, the other defendant, and sent for Nathaniel Pope. After he arrived, the two Hamiltons took a purse and put $12, together with two quarter-pound weights into it, and gave it to a female slave belonging to Noble Hamilton, one of the defendants. They directed her to go to a certain place on the river, not far distant. She went to the place, the
defendant and Pope lying in ambush not far off. The plaintiff came to her a short time afterwards. As soon as he came up, a negro fellow, who was also in ambush, caught him, and called for the others, who came to his assistance. Joseph Hamilton arrived first; and the purse, with the money and weights in it, were on the ground. He picked it up and struck the plaintiff with it, and injured him considerably. Pope, the witness, prevented Hamilton from any further abuse at that time. They then tied him and kept him in custody two days and nights; part of the time tied, and the balance of the time under guard. The magistrate, Joseph Hamilton, issued a warrant, and Pope executed it the morning after he was taken. They then proposed a compromise, and took a conveyance for his land and all his personal property, stated to be worth between one and two hundred pounds.
The plaintiff was poor; had a wife and a small family of children. While he was in custody, they threatened to strip and whip himunless he would comply with their demands by conveying his property to Noble Hamilton. Upon the conveyance being made, the warrant was destroyed and the plaintiff discharged. When Joseph Hamilton first came, he interrogated plaintiff as to his business. He said the servant owed him a small sum of money, which he had come to get.
The witness Pope, who was deputed by the defendant, Joseph Hamilton, to act as a constable on this occasion, proposed to return the warrant before the said Joseph; but he refused to take cognizance of it. Two justices of the peace lived within a short distance of the place where the plaintiff was held in custody, and one justice of the peace came to the place while he was so in custody; but the plaintiff was not carried before any justice of the peace.
The defendants were proved to be wealthy men. On the argument of the cause the defendant's counsel argued in mitigation of damages that the plaintiff was guilty of a felony by receiving the money, etc., put into the bag by the defendants.
In charging the jury, the court held that it was essential to the commission of a felony that the things taken should be taken without the consent of the owner. But that if the plaintiff had been actually guilty of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adams
...notwithstanding the owner's agent had told a servant to go to the defendant's house, and persuade him to come and steal the sack. Dodd v. Hamilton, 4 N. C. 471; State v. Barna, 4 N. C. 483. It was also error to refuse the fifth prayer for instruction, "that larceny cannot be committed when ......