State v. Brigman

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SMITH
• Citation: State v. Brigman, 94 N.C. 888 (N.C. 1886)
• Decision Date: 28 February 1886
• Parties: STATE v. THOMAS BRIGMAN.

94 N.C. 888

STATE

v.THOMAS BRIGMAN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1886.

INDICTMENT, tried before MacRae, Judge, and a jury, at Fall Term, 1885, of the Superior Court of RICHMOND county.

The defendant is charged with the wanton and wilful killing of a cow, belonging to one Seth Andrews, made an offence under the Act of December, 13, 1876, (The Code, §1082), as amended by the Act of February, 10, 1885, ch. 53. In its amended form, the statute declares, that “If any person shall, wantonly and wilfully, injure the personal property of another, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, whether the property be destroyed or not, and shall be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the Court.”

The defendant was put on trial before the jury, upon his plea of not guilty, and being examined, as a witness on his own behalf, testified to the following facts: The stock law prevails in the territory wherein the offence is alleged to have been committed, and Andrews, mentioned in the indictment, undertook to confine the cow in a pasture, surrounded by a very low and insufficient fence, from which she had repeatedly broken out for a week previous, and entered his cultivated land, and greatly damaged the crop growing thereon, which the defendant had sold to one Diggs. Andrews had been notified of the depredations committed by his stock, and request to keep his cattle out. Diggs had employed witness to take care of the crop, and directed him “to shoot them, if they could not otherwise be kept out of the field.”

On Saturday morning, witness found a cow there, and shot her, as soon as he came up to her, and again a second time, in the field. The witness did so, because he was unable to keep her out, either in the day time or at night, and as a means of protecting the crop. It is unnecessary to set out other evidence, since the Court instructed the jury, that upon the defendant's own statements, if accepted as correct, he was guilty. The jury convicted the defendant, and judgment being pronounced, he appealed to this Court.

Attorney General and Mr. Platt D. Walker, for the State .

Mr. John D. Shaw, for the defendant .

SMITH, C. J., (after stating the facts).

The sole question then is, whether the shooting and killing the cow under the circumstances detailed, and for the purposes mentioned, is “ wanton and wilful ” within the contemplation of the statute, and more especially, was it “ wanton? ” To be criminal, the act must possess both qualities. It was certainly wilful, for it was the development of a preconceived purpose, not an impulse of anger, excited by unexpectedly seeing a repetition of the annoying trespasses. But more is required to constitute the indictable offence. The act must not only be of purpose, but it must also be wanton. What does this qualifying adjective mean, when applied to the killing?

Wantonness is defined by Bonvier, to be “a licentious act of one man, towards the person of another, without regard to his rights,” and licentiousness, to be “the doing what one pleases, without regard to the rights of...