State v. Butler

• Decision Date: 15 April 1919
• Docket Number: 377.
• Citation: 98 S.E. 821,177 N.C. 585
• Parties: STATE ET AL. v. BUTLER.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

98 S.E. 821

177 N.C. 585

STATE ET AL. v. BUTLER.

No. 377.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 15, 1919

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Shaw, Judge.

Walter Butler was convicted for selling spirituous liquors, and he appeals. No error.

The law authorizes sentence imposing imprisonment with leave to work upon the public roads upon one convicted for selling spirituous liquor.

W. P Bynum and R. C. Strudwick, both of Greensboro, for appellant.

The Attorney General and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CLARK C.J.

The defendant introduced evidence to show his good character. The chief of police of Greensboro, Horace Foushee, witness for the state, was asked if he knew the general character of Walter Butler, and replied that he did. He was then asked "What is it?" The witness replied, "It is bad for selling whisky." The defendant's counsel objected to the answer and moved that it be stricken out as incompetent and not responsive to the question. This the court declined to do, and the defendant excepted.

This is the only question presented by the appeal. The witness doubtless could not answer broadly that the defendant's character was bad. He was on oath, and it was competent for him to state of his own motion, as he did, "It is bad for selling whisky." He doubtless gave the only answer that his conscience permitted. The state could not ask whether it was bad or good for a particular offense, but the witness in the interest of truth could qualify his answer as he did. The witness could not say that the defendant's character was good. Doubtless he could not say it was bad altogether. He therefore gave the only answer that he could. In the interest of the administration of justice and in the investigation of the truth of the charge before the court the answer could not be stricken out. The jury were entitled to the information.

This is plain, practical, common sense, and it has been held too often to be questioned. In State v. Summers, 173 N.C. 780, 92 S.E. 328, Hoke, J., for the court said:

"Objection is also made that the court refused to strike out the answer of certain other witnesses as to character, Dr. John R. Erwin and others, who, after saying they knew the character of defendant, qualified their further answer by saying in what respect it was bad. It is the accepted rule that a witness may do this of his own volition, and these exceptions also must be disallowed. Edwards v. Price, 162 N.C. 243 ; State v. Hairston, 121 N.C. 579-582 ."

In State v. Cathey, 170 N.C. 794, 87 S.E. 532, the sheriff in answer to the same question as to the general reputation of the defendant replied, "It is bad for dealing in liquor." It was held by Al...