State v. Gause, No. 580.

Docket NºNo. 580.
Citation227 N.C. 23, 40 S.E.2d. 463
Case DateDecember 11, 1946
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

40 S.E.2d. 463
227 N.C. 23

STATE.
v.
GAUSE.

No. 580.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 11, 1946.


[40 S.E.2d. 464]

Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; R. Hunt Parker, Judge.

Len Gause, alias Lynn Gause, alias Scooper Gause, alias Leon Gause, was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

New trial.

Criminal prosecution instituted in the County of Brunswick, State of North Carolina, upon indictment charging defendant with the murder of one H. J. Williamson, and upon motion of defendant removed to the County of New Hanover for trial.

The evidence offered upon the trial in Superior Court, as shown in the case on appeal and necessary to a proper understanding of the questions considered in disposing of this appeal, tends to show this pertinent factual situation: H. J. Williamson, a white man, died from gun shot wounds received on Saturday night, 23 February, 1946. At that time he resided in the Gause Landing community, southwest of the town of Shallotte, on the public road leading in general northeast to southwest direction, from that town to Gause Landing, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The front steps of the house were

seven yards from the edge of the road. Defendant, nicknamed Scooper, then resided west of and about three-quarters of a mile from the Williamson home. Between these two houses, Will Hill resided about one hundred yards from the Williamson home. Joe Gause, a brother of defendant, resided beyond the home of defendant, something like a mile and a quarter from the Williamson home. In going from and to his home and to and from Shallotte, defendant would pass the Williamson home along the public road.

On the late afternoon of the above date, before dark, defendant and another colored man, named Luke Gause (of no kin to defendant), who lived between the Williamson home and Shallotte, were traveling along the public road going in the direction of defendant's home and passing the Williamson home. Defendant was cursing, for which Williamson, who was in front of his home, upbraided him. An altercation between the two ensued. Williamson, a very strong and robust man, weighing 235 pounds and much larger than defendant, knocked defendant down with his fist. Defendant came up with a knife. Whereupon, Williamson got his gun from his front porch (having just put it there after shooting rabbits), and shot at defendant two or three times, running him off down the road toward the Will Hill house, where he stopped. He said he was shot. He tried in vain to buy a gun from Will Hill. Then he went on in direction of his own home.

About an hour later, around 8 o'clock, and after dark, H. J. Williamson was shot while sitting in the front or sitting room of his home, next to the window in the west end of the house. The shot was from without the house, and through the window.

Will Hill, as witness for the State, testified: That he heard one shot after dark; that before that he heard "someone passing talking * * * more like men than women"; that they went right up the road * * * toward Shallotte; that after they passed, he heard a gun fire--and that "it might have been fifteen minutes, something like that."

Luke Gause, also witness for the State, testified: That after Mr. Williamson

[40 S.E.2d. 465]

shot "behind Scooper, " Ches Gause and Mosser Hill, colored men, came over to Mr. Williamson's and they and he (Luke) stayed there about fifteen minutes; that they then went, in the direction of defendant's home, to George Bland's; that, after staying there about 25 or 30 minutes, he and Ches came back up the road, Ches turning off to go to his home before they reached Mr. Williamson's house; that it was dark then, and a gun fired when he passed Mr. Williamson's; that he "didn't see anybody with any gun, just heard it fire"; and that he was about 75 yards away, and went "in the opposite direction."

Joe Gause, also a witness for the State, testified: That defendant, his brother, came to his house around 8 or 8:30 on night of 23 February, 1946;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Cole v. Stevenson, No. 78-6211
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 5 Mayo 1980
    ...objection rule requiring objection to jury instructions at trial to preserve the question for appeal. See State v. Gause, 227 N.C. 26, 40 S.E.2d 463 (1946). But North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 does require exceptions to jury instructions to be made after trial if they are to b......
  • Reed v. Ross, No. 83-218
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1984
    ...objection at trial was not necessary to preserve for review a question involving jury instructions. State v. Gause, 227 N.C. 26, 40 S.E.2d 463 (1946). 5. Under North Carolina law, exceptions to jury instructions must be made after trial if they are to be preserved for appellate review, and ......
  • Cole v. Stevenson, No. 77-0351-HC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 14 Marzo 1978
    ...of this exception to the general rule are State v. Johnson, 227 N.C. 587, 42 S.E.2d 685 (1946) and State v. Gause, 227 N.C. 26, 40 S.E.2d 463 (1946) where the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed on appeal challenges to jury instructions which were incorrect as a matter of law and not obje......
  • Wolfe v. State of North Carolina, No. 7
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1960
    ...decisions are: State v. Robinson, 229 N.C. 647, 50 S.E.2d 740; State v. Wolfe, 227 N.C. 461, 42 S.E.2d 515; State v. Gause, 227 N.C. 26, 40 S.E.2d 463; State v. Stiwinter, 211 N.C. 278, 189 S.E. 868; State v. Dee, 214 N.C. 509, 199 S.E. 730; State v. Weaver, 228 N.C. 39, 44 S.E.2d 360; Stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Cole v. Stevenson, No. 78-6211
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 5 Mayo 1980
    ...objection rule requiring objection to jury instructions at trial to preserve the question for appeal. See State v. Gause, 227 N.C. 26, 40 S.E.2d 463 (1946). But North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 does require exceptions to jury instructions to be made after trial if they are to b......
  • Reed v. Ross, No. 83-218
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1984
    ...objection at trial was not necessary to preserve for review a question involving jury instructions. State v. Gause, 227 N.C. 26, 40 S.E.2d 463 (1946). 5. Under North Carolina law, exceptions to jury instructions must be made after trial if they are to be preserved for appellate review, and ......
  • Cole v. Stevenson, No. 77-0351-HC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 14 Marzo 1978
    ...of this exception to the general rule are State v. Johnson, 227 N.C. 587, 42 S.E.2d 685 (1946) and State v. Gause, 227 N.C. 26, 40 S.E.2d 463 (1946) where the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed on appeal challenges to jury instructions which were incorrect as a matter of law and not obje......
  • Wolfe v. State of North Carolina, No. 7
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1960
    ...decisions are: State v. Robinson, 229 N.C. 647, 50 S.E.2d 740; State v. Wolfe, 227 N.C. 461, 42 S.E.2d 515; State v. Gause, 227 N.C. 26, 40 S.E.2d 463; State v. Stiwinter, 211 N.C. 278, 189 S.E. 868; State v. Dee, 214 N.C. 509, 199 S.E. 730; State v. Weaver, 228 N.C. 39, 44 S.E.2d 360; Stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT