State v. Edens
| Decision Date | 31 October 1886 |
| Citation | 95 N.C. 693,59 Am.Rep. 294 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. J. T. EDENS. |
INDICTMENT, tried before Meares, Judge, and a jury, at September Term, 1886, of NEW HANOVER Criminal Court.
The defendant was tried at the September Term, 1886, of the Criminal Court of New Hanover county, upon the charge of slandering the character of an innocent woman in violation of §1113 of The Code. The indictment was in the following form:
“The jurors for the State, upon their oath, present that J. T. Edens, on the first day of April, 1886, at and in the county aforesaid, attempting wantonly and maliciously to injure and destroy the reputation of one Addie Edens, being an innocent and virtuous woman, did, by words spoken, declare, in substance, that the said Addie Edens was an incontinent woman, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”
The State proved that the defendant used language of the most vulgar and indecent character, which, in substance, was a direct and unmistakable charge of incontinency against the woman in question, who was his wife, from whom he had separated.
The defendant admitted that he had used language amounting to a charge of incontinency against his wife, but attempted to justify upon the ground that she was not an innocent woman, and that before their marriage she had had sexual intercourse with other men.
The defendant and his wife were married in July, 1886, and he separated from her in a few days thereafter.
The defendant requested the Court to instruct the jury that as a matter of law, a husband cannot slander the reputation of his wife.
This instruction was refused, and the Court charged the jury that, if they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was a virtuous or innocent woman, inasmuch as the language had been admitted by the defendant, that they ought to convict him. The defendant excepted.
After verdict of guilty, the defendant submitttd a motion in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the bill of indictment does not set forth the language nor the substance of the language alleged to have been used by the defendant, and upon which the charge is based. This motion was overruled, and judgment being pronounced, the defendant appealed.
Attorney-General, for the State .
Mr. John D. Bellamy, for the defendant .
SMITH, C. J. (after stating the facts).
We do not find it necessary to pass upon the form of the indictment and the effect of its omission to state slanderous language imputed, or to aver that it was uttered in the hearing and presence of any one, both of which are required to be averred in a complaint in a civil action, since we propose to dispose of the appeal upon the ruling to which the first exception is taken, with the remark that similar forms of indictment have been heretofore before the Court and acted on without objection for these alleged defects. State v. McDaniel, 84 N. C., 803; State v. Aldridge, 86 N. C., 680.
Can an indictment be sustained against the husband for charging the wife with incontinency? At common law verbal slander was not the subject of a criminal prosecution, and is now a misdemeanor only in the case of the imputation of a want of virtue in an innocent woman made in a wanton and malicious attempt to destroy her reputation.
Does the enactment embrace those sustaining marital relation, or is its operation confined to those not thus related?
The changes made in the Constitution of 1868, and the enactments in pursuance of its provisions in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Falkner
...curtly said (with their approval), without deigning to argue the question: "We have advanced from that barbarism." In State v. Edens, 95 N.C. 696, 59 Am. Rep. 294 late as 1886), the court reverted to the former ruling that a husband was not liable for beating his wife "unless the battery is......
-
State v. Falkner
...(with their approval), without deigning to argue the question: "We have advanced from that barbarism." In State v. Edens, 95 N. C. 696, 59 Am. Rep. 294 (as late as 1886), the court reverted to the former ruling that a husband was not liable for beating his wife "unless the battery is so gre......
-
Crowell v. Crowell
... ... without law to warrant the maintenance thereof, and also ... against the public policy of the state." The court ... overruled the demurrer, and thereupon the defendant filed an ... answer, and upon the issues submitted the jury found that the ... did not apply to the husband by reason of the marriage ... relation, and that this had been so held in State v ... Edens, 95 N.C. 693, 59 Am. Rep. 294. The court overruled ... State v. Edens, but held, by a divided court, that the ... defendant in the Fulton Case had ... ...
-
Crowell v. Crowell, (No. 442.)
...there taken that this did not apply to the husband by reason of the marriage relation, and that this had been so held in State v. Edens, 95 N. C. 693, 59 Am. Rep. 294. The court overruled State v. Edens, but held, by a divided court, that the defendant in the Fulton Case had a vested right ......