State v. Baker
| Decision Date | 31 January 1871 |
| Citation | 65 N.C. 332 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. JOSEPH BAKER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Where a defendant went to the prosecutor and said “I once thought we were friends, but I understand you have said thus and so about me, and you have to take it back.” The prosecutor refused to take it back, whereupon the defendant put his hand open and flat on the prosecutor's breast, and pushed him back some steps, when he fell over a flour barrel, it was held, to be an assault and battery.
This was an indictment for an assault and battery, tried before his Honor, Judge Cloud, at the last Spring Term of ROWAN Superior Court.
The testimony on the trial was that the parties were at a country store; that the defendant approached the prosecutor, and said, “I once thought we were friends, but I understand you have said thus and so about me, and you have got to take it back.” The prosecutor said in reply, “that he would not take back anything that he had said,” whereupon, the defendant put his hand, opened and flat, on the prosecutor's breast and pushed him back some steps, when the prosecutor fell over a flour barrel.
This was the only testimony, and his Honor told the jury that if they believed it, the defendant was guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty accordingly, and the defendant appealed.
Boyden & Bailey, for the defendant .
Attorney General, for the State .
The defendant went up to the prosecutor and said, “I once thought we were friends, but I understand you have said thus and so about me, and you have got to take it back.” The prosecutor refused to take it back, “whereupon the defendant put his hand, open and flat, on the prosecutor's breast and pushed him back some steps, when he fell over a flour barrel.”
At first sight this seems to be so indisputably an assault and battery, that, lest it be supposed that the defendant is encumbering the Court with trifles, it is necessary to state the ingenious shifts of his learned counsel in presenting his case.
I. “It was at a country store where politeness is not a commodity.” Suppose this to be so, and make full allowance for country manners, still, there may be “rudeness” at a country store; and if this was not, then rudeness cannot be.
II. “The hand was open.” So it would have been if he had slapped his face.
III. “Whether it was ‘rudeness' was a question for the jury--putting the hand on being an equivocal act and might have been friendly.”
Suppose the facts testified to had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jefferson
...of the case.” See State v. Adair, at this term. By the cases, State v. Prince, 63 N. C., 529. State v. Alman 64 N. C. 364,??and State v. Baker, 65 N. C. 332, it is settled, that in a trial for a capital felony, for sufficient cause, the Judge may discharge the jury and hold the prisoner for......
-
State v. Freeman
...evidence of an affray. But, if there had been ever so much, it was still for the Jury to say whether there was an affray or not. State v. Baker, 65 N. C. 332. That is, whether the defendants were mad and fighting or not We know that the law is that where two or more parties are indicted for......