State v. Cagle
| Decision Date | 10 April 1894 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. CAGLE. |
Bastardy—Evidence—Impeachment op Witness —Trial.
1. In a prosecution for bastardy, an instruction, under Code, § 32, that the affidavit of the prosecutrix that defendant was the father of her bastard was presumptive evidence against him, is proper.
2. In bastardy, it Is not error to send the jury a written memorandum of certain dates necessary to enable them to reach a conclusion, at their request.
3. In a prosecution for bastardy, the answer of a witness for the state, on cross-examination, "I do not keep a bawdyhouse, " cannot be im peached by evidence of bad character.
4. Bastardy proceedings, under Code, § 35, are civil in their nature, in respect to holding the defendant liable for the support of the child, and criminal as regards the fine imposed, and are therefore triable, under Acts 1891, c. 277, with criminal cases, on the first three days of the term.
Appeal from superior court, Moore county; Jacob Battle, Judge.
Prosecution against Allen Cagle for bastardy. Prom a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The fourth exception was as follows:
W. C. Douglass, for appellant
The Attorney General, for the State.
His honor followed the statute (Code, § 32) when he instructed the jury that the affidavit of the woman was presumptive evidence against the defendant. If presumptive, it might be rebutted by testimony. If not rebutted, the preponderance upon the issue of paternity was on the side of the state, and there could be no even balance. State v. Williams, 109 N. C. 846, 13 S. E. 880; State v. Rogers, 79 N. C. 609.
The second exception cannot be sustained. The judge may now, by statute, hand his charge, in writing, to the jury. Surely, he may, at their request, send them a memorandum of certain dates necessary to be remembered in order to enable them to reach a conclusion. Only one item...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAlister v. State
...The contradiction of witness Williams by Dr. Wall was erroneous. Kirby's Dig., § 3138; 61 A. 65; 2 N.Y.S. 738; 53 N.Y. 164; 31 N.Y. 75; 114 N.C. 835; 23 Tex. Civ. App. 617; 44 S.W. 336; 41 Vt. 91 Ark. 555. The rule is the same in both civil and criminal cases. 90 Ark. 209; 72 Ark. 409; 13 A......
-
State v. Poolos
...by the answer. Clark v. Clark, 65 N.C. 655; State v. Roberts, 81 N.C. 605; State v. Morris, 109 N.C. 820, 13 S.E. 877; State v. Cagle, 114 N.C. 835, 19 S.E. 766; State v. Wilson, 217 N.C. 123, 7 S.E.2d 11; State v. Broom, 222 N.C. 324, 22 S.E.2d 926; State v. King, 224 N.C. 329, 30 S.E.2d 2......
-
State v. Addington
... ... 421, 2 S.E. 180. In the second place, the statute requires ... that the defendant shall be committed in default of the ... payment of the fine, and, lastly, this court has so construed ... the statute in former decisions. State v. Burton, ... 113 N.C. 655, 18 S.E. 657; State v. Cagle, 114 N.C ... 835, 19 S.E. 766; Myers v. Stafford, 114 N.C. 231, ... 19 S.E. 764; State v. Wynne, 116 N.C. 981, 21 S.E ... 35. This being so, the fine cannot be imposed in a proceeding ... which is not criminal, and upon the verdict of a jury, where ... the issue submitted is tried like those ... ...
-
State v. McDonald
... ... be rebutted by other testimony which may be introduced by the ... defendant," etc. And some of the decisions upholding the ... construction indicated will be found in State v ... Mitchell, 119 N.C. 784, 25 S.E. 783, 1020; State v ... Cagle, 114 N.C. 835-839, 19 S.E. 766; State v ... Williams, 109 N.C. 846, 13 S.E. 880; State v ... Rogers, 79 N.C. 609; State v. Bennett, 75 N.C ... In ... State v. Mitchell, Avery, J., delivering the opinion, said: ... "The charge that the oath and examination of the mother ... ...