State v. Haney
| Decision Date | 30 June 1872 |
| Citation | 67 N.C. 467 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM HANEY. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Where a homicide was committed in November, 1865, and it appeared that the prisoner and deceased belonged to the same army, and that the quarrel which preceded the homicide did not grow out of “any war duties or war passions,” but out of a private transaction between the parties; it was held, that in such a case the amnesty act did not apply.
Where a bill of indictment for murder did not allege the time of the death, nor that it occurred within a year and a day from the time when the wound was inflicted, but nsed these words, “of which said mortal wound the said J. H. did languish, and then and there did die;” Held, that the charge in the indictment was sufficient; especially under the act of the General Assembly, Rev. Code, chap. 35, secs. 15 and 20.
[ State v. Orrell, 1 Dev. 139, cited and approved.]
This was an indictment for murder, tried before Henry, J., at Spring Term, 1872, of YANCEY Superior Court.
The prisoner was charged with the murder of James Haney. The evidence was that the homicide was committed in November, 1865.
The quarrel grew out of a misunderstanding concerning a discharge which the deceased had purchased from the prisoner, and which the deceased desired the prisoner to take back, and to give up a pistol, &c., &c. The prisoner refused to recant the trade, and an altercation took place in which the deceased was shot and killed by the prisoner. It was agreed by the Solicitor and the prisoner's counsel, that the deceased and prisoner, in the early part of the war, both belonged to the Confederate army, and that afterwards they both joined the Federal army, from which they had both been discharged, and returned to their homes sometime prior to the homicide.
Prisoner moved for his discharge under the amnesty act, which was refused by the Court. Under a charge from the Court the jury found a verdict of guilty. Judgment of death was pronounced, from which prisoner appealed to this Court.
Attorney General and Battle, for the State .
Ovide Dupre, for prisoner .
There is no reason to suppose that the homicide grew out of any “war duties or war passions,” so as to bring it within the benefit of the amnesty act. Long after the war was over, but prior to 1st January, 1866, the parties quarrelled about a trade which they had made while they were soldiers, and the prisoner killed the deceased. They were not enemies during the war, but were together in the same army on the same side, so that the transaction about which they subsequently quarrelled was not an act of hostility but of friendly dealing. We are of the opinion that the amnesty act does not apply. State v. Blalock, Phil. R.; State v. Shelton, 65, N. C. R.
There was a motion in arrest of judgment in this Court, upon the ground that the indictment did not charge the time of the death of the deceased, nor that it was within a year and day from the time when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vance
...by this Court in five murder cases. State v. Pate, 121 N.C. 659, 28 S.E. 354 (1897); State v. Morgan, 85 N.C. 581 (1881); State v. Haney, 67 N.C. 467 (1872); State v. Baker, 46 N.C. (1 Jones) 267 (1854); State v. Shepherd, 30 N.C. (8 Ired.) 195 In Hefler, we refused to apply the year and a ......
-
State v. Minster
...407, 15 So. 73 (1894); State v. Zerban, 617 S.W.2d 458 (Mo.Ct.App.1981); Debney v. State, 45 Neb. 856, 64 N.W. 446 (1895); State v. Haney, 67 N.C. 467 (1872); Elliott v. Mills, 335 P.2d 1104 (Okla.Crim.App.1959); Cole v. State, 512 S.W.2d 598 (Tenn.Crim.App.1974); Aven v. State, 277 S.W. 10......
-
Elliott v. Mills
...1019; Lester v. State, 9 Mo. 666; State v. Borders, Mo., 199 S.W. 180; Debney v. State, 45 Neb. 856, 64 N.W. 446, 34 L.R.A. 851; State v. Haney, 67 N.C. 467; Bowen v. State, 1 Or. 270; Percer v. State, 118 Tenn. 765, 103 S.W. 780; Edmondson v. State, 41 Tex. 496; Hardin v. State, 4 Tex.App.......
-
State v. Hefler
...cases discussing this rule, the defendants were convicted of murder. See, State v. Pate, 121 N.C. 659, 28 S.E. 354 (1897); State v. Haney, 67 N.C. 467 (1872); State v. Baker, 46 N.C. 267 (1854); State v. Shepherd, 30 N.C. 195 (1847). This Court is not predisposed to extend the application o......