State v. Cherry
| Decision Date | 30 June 1869 |
| Citation | 63 N.C. 493 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. JOHN CHERRY and SALLY CHERRY. |
It is within the discretion of the Judge presiding at a trial to admit or exclude evidence which, at the stage of the case when it is tendered, is irrelevant, even although the counsel tendering it promises to connect it with the case by subsequent testimony; therefore, no appeal to this Court lies from a ruling which excludes such evidence.
Where an imputation against the character of a witness is made by the very question which is put to him, evidence in support of that character becomes competent.
A witness called merely to sustain or impeach the character of another witness in the cause, may himself be either impeached or sustained.
A building of hewn logs (twenty-six feet by fifteen,) divided by a partition of the same, upon one side of which were horses, and upon the other, corn, oats and wheat, (threshed and unthreshed,) also hay, fodder, &c., having sheds adjoining, under which were wagons and other farming utensils, is a “barn” within the meaning of that word in the Rev. Code, c. 34, s. 2, punishing with death the burning of barns having grain in them.
( State v. Laughlin, 8 Jon. 455, S. v. Garrett, Bus. 359, cited and approved.)
ARSON, tried before Logan, J., at Spring Term 1869 of the Superior Court of GASTON.
Upon the trial it was shown that the building charged to have been burned, was of hewn logs closely fitted together, twenty-six feet by fifteen in size; that a partition of hewn logs ran through it, cutting off eight or nine feet from the length, for stables, in which were kept his horses; that the other part (having an upper and a lower room,) usually held fodder, hay, and (in the room below) oats, rye, and wheat, in the straw and threshed; also, sometimes corn; that there were sheds adjoining on three sides, in which were kept the owner's buggy wagon, threshing machine, wheat-fan, ploughs, farming tools, &c.; and that when burned the building contained two horses, sixty bushels of threshed oats, ten bushels of corn, and a few bushels of rye.
Upon the trial the State introduced one Louisa Costner, and upon cross-examination for the prisoner, she was asked if “she did not have a bedstead in her house?” The question having been objected to as irrelevant, the Court asked what was its object. The counsel declined to answer in the presence of the witness, as it would enable her to evade it, but added that they expected to connect it with the case. Thereupon the Court excluded the question, and the prisoner excepted.
The prisoner introduced one James Davis as a witness to character only, who testified that the character of certain State witnesses was bad for virtue and truth. He was afterwards asked by the State if the character of those witnesses was not as good as his own, both for virtue and truth. The prisoner's counsel told the witness that he need not answer that question. The Solicitor did not insist upon an answer, and none was made.
The prisoner then introduced a witness, and proposed to prove the character of James Davis; the State objected, and the objection was sustained. Thereupon the prisoner excepted.
Verdict, Guilty; Rule for New Trial; Rule discharged; Judgment, and Appeal.
Whether Louisa Costner “had a bedstead in her house” was a fact irrelevant to the case at the time she was asked the question, so far as then appeared, and of course the evidence was inadmissible and ought to have been rejected, unless the statement of the prisoner's counsel that “they expected to connect it with the case” made it an exception to the general rule. The prisoner's counsel had no legal right to put the question, so it was no error to reject it. Under the circumstances it was a matter within the discretion of the Judge, and this Court has no power to review his decision.
Haigh v. Belcher, 32 E. C. L. R. 553, was relied on in the argument before us. There Coleridge, Judge, admitted the evidence, saying, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Exum
... ... facts then appeared, the ruling of the court was correct, ... and, if the prisoner desired the benefit of the evidence from ... this witness, he should have offered it after the development ... of the trial had made it competent. State v. Cherry, ... 63 N.C. 493 ... The ... next four exceptions--26, 27, 28, and 29--are insisted on ... because the court permitted the state to ask the witness ... [50 S.E. 286] ... Exum) ... if she had not been hypnotized by her husband; to which the ... ...
-
Worrell v. State, 4 Div. 302
...contain stabling for horses and cattle.' Century Dictionary; Webster's International Dictionary; State v. Laughlin, 53 N.C. 354; State v. Cherry, 63 N.C. 493; State v. Smith, 28 Iowa, 565. 'Crib' is defined as a box or bin, or similar wooden structure, for storing grain, salt, etc.; as a cr......
-
Gourley v. Callahan
...of a witness is made by the very question which is put to him, evidence in support of that character becomes competent." [See The State v. Cherry, 63 N.C. 493.] too, the principle has been extended quite beyond this by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, for that tribunal has decla......
-
Jackson v. State
... ... "A ... barn is a covered building designed for the storage of grain, ... hay, flax, or other farm produce. In America barns also ... usually contain stabling for horses and cattle." Century ... Dictionary; Webster's International Dictionary; State ... v. Laughlin, 53 N.C. 354; State v. Cherry, 63 ... N.C. 493; State v. Smith, 28 Iowa, 565. "Crib" is ... defined as a box or bin, or similar wooden structure, for ... storing grain, salt, etc.; as a crib for corn or oats. And ... "corncrib" is defined as a crib for storing corn ... Webster's International Dictionary; Century ... ...