State v. Blalock

• Decision Date: 31 January 1867
• Citation: 61 N.C. 242
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAM BLALOCK and others.

61 N.C. 242

STATE

v.WILLIAM BLALOCK and others.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1867.

The Supreme Court will look into the merits of a prosecution coming within the scope of the act of December, 1866, entitled “An act granting a general amnesty and pardon of all officers and soldiers,” &c., so far as to ascertain whether the defendants are clearly entitled to an acquittal. If so entitled a new trial will be granted that they may save costs; it will not be granted if their innocence is doubtful.

By Reade, J., the distinction between pardon and amnesty discussed and stated. A pardon is granted, usually, by the executive, to one who is guilty, either before or after conviction; amnesty, by the Legislature, to those who may be guilty, generally in classes, and before trial.

The act of December, 1866, includes both amnesty and pardon, and the court will place a liberal construction upon its terms, that its benefits may be extended to as many as possible.

AFFRAY, tried before Mitchell, J., at Fall Term, 1866, of the Superior Court of CALDWELL.

The four defendants convicted in this case, together with twelve others, had been indicted for unlawfully assembling together and committing an affray.

All of the original defendants were citizens of the State, and all, with the exception of one Jesse Moore, claimed to be enlisted soldiers in the Federal service. Jesse Moore and four others, who were members of the home guard organization of the State, were assembled at the house of one Carroll Moore, in Caldwell county, on the night of the 7th January, 1865. Early the next morning the defendant Blalock, with a squad of men, who were some of the original defendants, approached the house armed, and, upon an attempt on the part of Jesse Moore and those with him to escape with guns in their hands, fired upon them and ordered them to halt and surrender. The fire was returned and Jesse Moore and Blalock were wounded.

There was evidence that Blalock had been a Federal soldier for some time, and that the others about a month before this occurrence had attempted to reach the Federal lines; that while on their way they met one Davis who claimed to be a major in the Federal service and a recruiting officer, and upon his proposing that they should enlist as soldiers they took the oath usual upon enlistment and received at his hands one and a half days' rations. Failing to reach the lines, they returned to their homes. A witness testified that he had seen Davis with the army in Tennessee, and that he was acting as a recruiting officer.

It was further in evidence that one Hartley, a lieutenant in the Federal service, ordered Blalock to take a squad of men and capture the home guards at Carroll Moore's; also that the defendants subsequently received clothing and rations as Federal soldiers.

His Honor charged that if the defendants had never been connected, or done duty with the Federal army, the mere fact of taking the oath before Davis and receiving one and a half days' rations would not justify the affray, although Hartley had authority to command a squad of Federal soldiers and gave the order for the capture of the home guards at Carroll Moore's. Prisoners excepted.

Verdict, Guilty; Judgment, and Appeal.

Attorney General, for the State .

Folk and Blackmer & McCorkle, for the defendant .

READE, J.

There were eighteen persons indicted in this case. They were citizens of North Carolina, and during the war they enlisted in the Federal service and engaged in a fight with arms, with certain of the home guards in the Confederate service; and some were wounded on both sides.

Several interesting questions were discussed at the bar as to the regularity of the enlistment, and of the swearing and mustering in of the defendants, involving the general question, Whether they were soldiers in the Federal service at all; and if they were, then, whether they were acting under orders or were marauders.

But we are relieved from deciding these complex and embarrassing questions by reason of the fact that, since the trial below, the Legislature has passed an act of amnesty and pardon, which embraces this case. We did, indeed, so far consider the facts as to enable us to determine that the defendants are not clearly entitled to an acquittal upon the merits; because if they are they would be entitled to a new trial to save the costs. But it is evident that their guilt or innocence is involved in much doubt, and we can see no good likely to result from another trial.

The conflict of arms and political disturbances through which we have passed have troubled society to its deep foundations. Those who are now neighbors have lately been in armed hostility, and met each other with deadly purpose; property and lives have been sacrificed; those who were in command had to compel obedience, and were sometimes too imperious; those who had to serve were worn out and irritable, and sometimes resistant; the rapacious plundered and the innocent suffered. Every one has something unpleasant to remember, and many have wrongs to revenge....