State v. George
| Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHN GEORGE, alias JOHN GREEN. |
INDICTMENT tried before Clark, Judge, and a jury, at September Criminal Term, 1885, of WAKE Superior Court.
The indictment was preferred under §973 of The Code, which is as follows, to-wit; “Any one who shall abduct, or by any means induce any child under the age of fourteen years, who shall reside with the father, mother, uncle, aunt, or elder sister or brother, or shall be at a school, or be an orphan and reside with a guardian, to leave such person or school, shall be guilty of a crime, and on conviction, shall be fined or imprisoned at the discretion of the Court, or may be sentenced to the penitentiary for a period not exceeding fifteen years.”
In the succeeding section, 974, which makes it criminal to conspire to abduct, &c., and subjects the offender to like imprisonment as in the preceding section, it is provided: “that no one who may be a nearer blood relation to the child than the persons named in said act, shall be indicted for either of said offences.”
The indictment is in the following words: “The jurors for the State, upon their oath present, that on the 23d day of January, A. D. 1884, in the county of Wake, one Irene Pearson, then and there being a child of one H. I. Pearson, was residing with her said father, H. I. Pearson, and that then and there, while the said Irene Pearson was so residing with her said father, John George alias John Green, late of said county, wilfully and unlawfully did abduct the said Irene Pearson from, and induced her, the said Irene Pearson, to leave her father aforesaid, the said H. I. Pearson, she, the said Irene Pearson, then and there being under the age of fourteen years, against the form of the statute,” &c.
On the trial, H. I. Pearson, the father of Irene Pearson, and a witness for the State, testified that in a conversation with the defendant, he, the defendant, commenced telling on himself, and witness cautioned him not to tell anything to convict himself, and said to him, “that he did not come there to get evidence to convict him, but he wanted to use him as a witness;” that he made him no promise, and thereupon the defendant admitted his taking his girl off, and that he did it; that prior to that time he had no information of the defendant's guilt.
This evidence of the admission of the defendant, was excepted to by his counsel, but the exception was overruled by the Court and the jury returned a verdict of “guilty.”
The defendant moved in arrest of judgment upon the following grounds:
1. That the indictment did not state the means by which the said Irene Pearson was abducted.
2. That the indictment does not set forth that the abduction was done without the consent and against the will of her father, the said H. I. Pearson.
3. That it was not alleged in the indictment, that the defendant was not a nearer blood relation to the child than H. I. Pearson, her father, named in the bill of indictment.
The motion was overruled, and from the judgment pronounced on the verdict, the defendant appealed.
Attorney General and Peele & Maynard for the State .
Messrs. J. C. L. Harris and A. M. Lewis & Son, for the defendant .
ASHE, J., (after stating the facts).
The exception to the admission of evidence of the confession of the defendant, was properly overruled. The testimony was clearly admissible. It was voluntary and without any inducement of hope or fear, and was made after he was cautioned by the witness Pearson not to tell anything to convict himself. The evidence would have been admissible even if the defendant at the time of making the confession had been in custody and charged with the crime. State v. Patterson, 68 N. C., 292.
The grounds assigned for the arrest of judgment ought not to have heen sustained.
It was necessary in the indictment to state the means by which the abduction was affected.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sturdivant, 1
...See State v. Norwood, 289 N.C. 424, 222 S.E.2d 253 (1976); State v. Penley, 277 N.C. 704, 178 S.E.2d 490 (1971); see also State v. George, 93 N.C. 567 (1885). In short, common sense dictates that one cannot unlawfully kidnap or unlawfully restrain another with his consent. This being so, we......
-
King v. Hanson
...Abduction is the taking away a wife, child or ward by fraud and persuasion or open violence. Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. 606; State v. George, 93 N.C. 567. In private or law it is the act of taking away a man's wife by violence or persuasion. 3 Stephen's Commentaries, 536. In reason, the w......
-
State v. Johnson
... ... v. Leeper, 146 N.C. 655, 61 S.E. 585; State v ... Carpenter, 173 N.C. 767, 92 S.E. 373; State v ... Maslin, 195 N.C. 537, 143 S.E. 3 ... In ... State v. Abbott, 218 N.C. 470, 476, 11 S.E.2d 539, ... 542, speaking to the subject, it is written: "In State ... v. George, 93 N.C. 567, 570, Ashe, J., for the court, said: ... 'The indictment strictly follows the words of the ... statute, and that is laid down in all the authorities as the ... true and safe rule. It is true there are some few exceptions, ... but we do not think they embrace this case.' State v ... ...
-
State v. Bissette
...the statute. State v. Loesch, 237 N.C. 611, 75 S.E.2d 654; State v. Gregory, supra; State v. Gibson, 221 N.C. 252, 20 S.E.2d 51; State v. George, 93 N.C. 567; State v. Stanton, 23 N.C. 424. There are a few exceptions to the rule, State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 77 S.E.2d 917, but, in my opini......