State v. Alderman

• Decision Date: 21 December 1921
• Docket Number: 276.
• Citation: 110 S.E. 59,182 N.C. 917
• Parties: STATE v. ALDERMAN ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

110 S.E. 59

182 N.C. 917

STATE v. ALDERMAN ET AL.

No. 276.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 21, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Pender County; Kerr, Judge.

Minnie Alderman and another were convicted of offenses, and they appeal.Affirmed.

The defendants were convicted upon a bill of indictment which, in the first count, charged an attempt to kill Luther Alderman by administering paris green, a poison, to him; in the second count, a secret assault with intent to kill by administering paris green; the third, an assault with intent to kill by administering paris green; and, fourth an assault with a deadly weapon by administering paris green and thereby inflicting a serious injury upon him.

Defendants were convicted and appealed from the judgment.

C. E McCullen, of Burgaw, for appellants.

James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER J.

Exceptions 3, 4, 5, and 6 were taken to the refusal of the judge to nonsuit the state at the close of the state's evidence and again at the close of all the evidence.

The defendants were the wife and the daughter of the prosecuting witness, Luther Alderman.It appeared that, on the 14th day of April, 1921, the defendant, the daughter, Christiana prepared the breakfast of her fatherLuther Alderman who was working on the farm of John Murphy, not very far from his own home.The son, Solomon Alderman, took the breakfast to his father about 11 o'clock.It consisted of coffee in a quart bottle and some biscuits and meat.He drank some of the coffee and soon after declared that he had been poisoned.The witness further stated that he did not put anything in the coffee.Luther, himself, described the effect of the coffee as follows:

"I chewed up a mouthful of biscuit and swallowed it, and then I took another bite.I then took a drink of coffee to wrench it down, but when I took the drink of coffee, it was so bad, it naturally burned my mouth up, and I went to heaving and throwing it up.I said to Solomon, 'Who fixed my breakfast?'He said, 'Christiana cooked it.'I said, 'She or your mamma has certainly poisoned it.' "

J. A. Murphy, Sr., described the effect of the poisoning upon Luther as being very serious.He became unconscious and remained so until the next day.He could be heard screaming a quarter of a mile away, and he had all kinds of spasms.The doctor testified that the poison from which he was suffering was paris green, and the chemist, after an examination of the bottle and its contents, also reported that it contained paris green.

Solomon Alderman, the son, testified that he did not put paris green in the bottle, either before or while he was carrying it to his father.The mother, Minnie Alderman, is connected with the poisoning in two ways: First, she was at home and Christiana was under her control and influence; second, she and her husband had been on bad terms for 15 years, and Luther himself testified that his wife, Minnie, had told him that she was going to poison him if it was the last thing she would do and made violent threats against him.

The daughter Christiana's connection with it was shown by the fact that she prepared the breakfast for her father and gave it to Solomon to be taken to him.There was a spoon having something green on it which she put in the stove that the green substance might be burnt off.The theory of the defense was that Luther, himself, put the paris green in the coffee after he got it from his son that morning with a view to bringing this charge against his wife and daughter.Upon the evidence, the judge was right in overruling the motion for judgment as of nonsuit.

Defendants' counsel, however, by his exceptions 1 and 2, raised the question as to the admissibility of threats testified to by the husband himself.He presents the question in two aspects: First, that this being an indictment for an assault and battery, evidence of previous threats is not admissible, citing State v. Kimbrell,151 N.C. 702, 66 S.E. 208, 614.In this case, however, one of the questions involved was as to the identity of the party who put the poison in the coffee and another, as to the knowledge of the defendants, that poison had been put in the bottle.This distinguishes it from the ordinary cases of assault and battery, and takes it out of the principle of the Kimbrell Case.He then, secondly, contends, that all the evidence of Luther Alderman against his wife, Minnie, was incompetent under Cons. Stat. § 1802.It is stated in Wharton's Criminal Evidence, vol. 1, p. 808, that--

"In all cases of personal injuries committed by the husband or wife, against each other, the injured party is an admissible witness against the other.Thus the husband may be a witness against the wife when she is prosecuted for assaulting him.The wife may be a witness against the husband on a prosecution against him for attempting to poison her."

The converse, it seems, also would be true.This court in State v. Davidson,77 N.C. 522, held that the husband is a competent witness against the wife on a prosecution for striking him with an axe.Among the instances given of the force necessary to constitute an assault and battery is putting a poisonous or noxious substance in...