State v. Brodnax

• Decision Date: 30 June 1866
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE v. THOMAS BRODNAX, a freedman.

61 N.C. 41

THE STATE

v.THOMAS BRODNAX, a freedman.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1866.

In a case where the facts were, that the prisoner, a slave, was dancing, singing and making a considerable noise, with other slaves, between the negro houses and the overseers's house, which were about thirty feet apart; that, upon the overseer, who is the deceased, and was an elderly man, ordering them to stop the noise, all did, except the prisoner, who, upon being again ordered to stop, returned an answer which offended the deceased; that the latter replied “if you say that again, I will mash your mouth,” whereupon he repeated the words, dancing the while, with his face towards the deceased, but retreating towards the negro houses; that the deceased then walked towards him with a stick (a deadly weapon) in his hand, and struck him with it upon the head, twice; and thereupon the prisoner wrenched the stick from the deceased, and struck him one blow with it, with his utmost strength, and fled; the deceased falling, and dying in a few moments: Held, that the killing was manslaughter, and not murder.

( The State v. Will, 1 D. and B., 121, cited and approved; The State v. Nutt, 61 N.C. 20, cited, approved, and distinguished.)

MURDER, tried at Spring Term, 1866, of Rockingham Superior Court, before Gilliam, J.

Upon the trial, the jury found by special verdict the following facts: “the prisoner, Thomas Broadnax, was a slave, and in January, 1865, was the property of Dr. E. T. Brodnax, of Rockingham county, and the deceased was the overseer of the said Brodnax, and entrusted with the management of the prisoner at the time of the commission of the homicide; that late in the evening of the 2d day of January, after the day's work was done, and the negroes had returned to their houses, the prisoner, his sister, a grown woman, and some small children assembled in the plat of ground which lay between the negro-houses and the overseer's house; that the space between their houses was about thirty feet; that the prisoner and those with him began to dance and sing, and made a considerable noise; that the deceased came to the door, and ordered them to cease making the noise; that they all immediately ceased, except the prisoner, who continued to dance and sing; that the deceased then said to him, “Tom, you are no better than the young ones, and you must stop your noise too;' that the prisoner replied, ‘You will not let me go to master's house to play, and will not let me play here, and I don't know where to play;’ that the deceased said to him, ‘If you say that again, I will mash your mouth;’ that the prisoner repeated these words, and was at the time dancing, with his face towards the deceased, and his back towards the negro-houses, and as he danced was going backwards towards the negro-houses; that the deceased walked towards him with a stick in his hand, and struck him twice upon the head with the stick; that the prisoner wrenched the stick out of the hand of the deceased, and struck him one blow with it, and fled; that the deceased immediately fell to the ground, and died within a few minutes, his skull being fractured by the blow; that the deceased was an elderly man, and the prisoner a man just grown, and when he struck the deceased he used his utmost strength; that the stick, with which the prisoner struck the deceased, was the same with which he had twice been stricken by the deceased, was about three inches thick at the larger end, and an inch and a half at the smaller end, and three feet in length; and, in the opinion of the jury, was a deadly weapon, it being a heavy hickory stick; that the homicide, and all the circumstances connected therewith, took place in Rockingham county,” &c., &c.

His Honor, considering that the facts above stated constituted a case of manslaughter, gave judgment accordingly. Whereupon, the Solicitor for the State appealed to this court.

The Attorney General, for the State .

Phillips and Battle, for the prisoner .

BATTLE, J.

At the time when the homicide with which the prisoner stands charged was committed, he is stated in the special verdict to have been a slave; but at the time of the trial for the offence, we know, that by the operation of a public law he had become a free-man. Under these circumstances, it is contended by the counsel for the prisoner, that his case is to be considered and determined upon the same principles as would be applicable to the case of one free-man killing another. This position is sought to be sustained by the analogy of the effect which the repeal of a statute has upon an offence which was committed while the statute was in force. In such case the offender cannot be tried, or if tried before the repeal no judgment can after-wards be pronounced against...