State v. Hildreth
| Decision Date | 30 June 1849 |
| Citation | 9 Ired. 429,51 Am.Dec. 364,31 N.C. 429 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ROBERT HILDRETH. |
In an indictment for homicide, it is the province and duty of the Court to inform the jury, upon the supposition of the truth of the facts, as being agreed on or found by the jury, what the degree of the homicide is.
Where the State, in a prosecution for a homicide, relies upon the ground of express malice, the witnesses can only prove the existence of previous malice or threats, but they cannot prove the existence of the malice up to the time of the homicide and that the prisoner acted on it in slaying. It is the province of the jury to make those inferences, or not, upon the facts proved.
When persons fight on fair terms, and, after an interval, blows having been given, a party draws, in the heat of blood, a deadly instrument and inflicts a deadly injury, it is manslaughter only; but, if a party enter a contest, dangerously armed, and fights under an unfair advantage, though mutual blows pass, it is not manslaughter, but murder.
It is the province of the Court, in which the trial takes place, to judge of the truth or sufficiencey of the causes assigned for a motion for a continuance or removal of a trial.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Richmond County, at the Fall Term 1848, his Honor Judge CALDWELL presiding.
The prisoner was indicted in Anson for the murder of William Taylor; and David Hildreth was charged in the same indictment, as being present, aiding and abetting. At the instance of the prisoner, his trial was removed to Richmond; and in Richmond the prisoner prayed for a second removal of the trial, upon his affidavit, which is set out in the bill of exceptions, stating various acts of sundry persons and other circumstances, which had induced him to believe, that he could not have a fair trial in Richmond. The Court refused the motion. The prisoner then moved for a continuance, upon his affidavit, which is also set out in the bill of exceptions, stating the absence of divers witnesses, who had been summoned for him, by whom he expected to prove several material facts therein stated. The Court refused that motion also. It is stated in the bill of exceptions, that about 100 persons were summoned as jurors in the case, and that the prisoner challenged a large majority of them for cause, before the jury was formed; and that the prisoner examined those, thus challenged, as to their indifference, and that more than 15 of them had formed and expressed an opinion unfavorable to the prisoner.
Upon the trial, one Edmund Taylor, a son of the deceased, and of the age of 21 or thereabouts, gave evidence on the part of the State: That, after sunset on the 5th of September, 1848, he was in his father's corn field engaged in stacking fodder with his father, a negro man, and a younger brother--who had not age and capacity to be examined as a witness: That he, Edmund, was on a stack, which they were near finishing, and his father and the negro were throwing up fodder to him; when he saw the prisoner, riding about in the field of his uncle, John Taylor, to the north of them, and reeling as if drunk. At that time David Hildreth rode up to the fence on the South side of the field and asked, if they knew where Robert was; and upon being told where he was, David called Robert, who answered him; and David then rode around the field into a lane between the fields of William Taylor and John: That the prisoner soon afterwards pulled down the fence and rode up towards the stack, so as to have the deceased between him and the stack: that then David came in a different direction, and stopped on the other side of the stack, and about six or eight steps off: that the prisoner did not then appear to be drunk, and he asked, if they had not done stacking fodder: to which no reply was made, as the witness and the deceased were displeased with him on account of a State's warrant he had taken out against them not long before: that the prisoner then used very obscene and insulting language to them, and turned his horse as if he were going to ride off; and the deceased then told him, he would indict him for pulling down his fence and coming into his field, and ordered him out: upon which the prisoner got off his horse and made towards the deceased, who gave back and passed the stack; that as he passed he told the witness to him give his knife, which the witness refused; that David then said, “take notice, I do not get off my horse:” That the prisoner continued to advance on the deceased and the latter to retreat, when he said to the prisoner, “I'll kill you, if you don't go out of my field;” but that the prisoner still advanced and the witness said to his father, “I would not let a man rush on me in my own field in that way”--whereupon David said, “hush, or I'll whip both of you,” and the deceased picked up a doted chump and after giving back eight or ten steps, and while still giving back, he struck the prisoner about the head, when the witness saw the prisoner's hand strike the deceased in the breast, and then the deceased struck the prisoner again, and immediately exclaimed, “Bob Hildreth has killed me--he has cut my heart open”-- and the deceased, bleeding very much, walked off about twenty steps and fell dead. The witness further stated, that the fight occurred between sunset and dark, and that the moon was shining, so that it was daylight and moon-light; that, when the prisoner got off his horse, he did not think he would hurt his father, as he noticed particularly to see, if he had a knife or stick in his hand, and that he did not discover either, though he was on the stack; that he did not see the prisoner raise his hand, while he was advancing on the deceased, and that he saw him strike but one blow, though there were two wounds; and that immediately afterwards he saw a bloody knife in the hand of the prisoner, with a blade four inches long.
Other witnesses gave evidence for the State, that the deceased was a small and infirm man, about sixty years old; that there were two wounds on the dead body--one, on the breast, about one inch deep and penetrating the breast bone, and appeared to be a stab with a knife; the other, on the left side, about three quarters of an inch wide and six inches deep, which was mortal.
Further evidence was given, that the prisoner leased a house from the deceased, situate about a quarter of a mile from that in which the deceased resided; and that, about four or five weeks before the homicide, the prisoner told a witness, the deceased was in the habit of watching his house to catch him trading with slaves, and he asked, if he would not be justified in whipping him--to which the witness replied he had better not do so, but appeal to the law. Other witnesses gave evidence, that, on the 13th of August 1844, the prisoner applied to a magistrate for a peace warrant against the deceased and his son Edmund, upon the ground, that they threatened to burn his house and also to do him personal injury: That the magistrate endeavored to put him off, and the prisoner said, if he did not grant him a warrant, he would take the law into his own hands: That, thereupon, the warrant was issued on the prisoner's affidavit, and the defendants therein were arrested and on examination discharged. Another witness deposed, that, about five weeks before the homicide, the prisoner asked him several times, if the deceased had not applied to him to watch the prisoner's house for the purpose of detecting him in trading with slaves; to which inquiries the witness replied, that Taylor talked a great deal, and that it was not worth while to mind him--and that, during the conversation, the prisoner said two or three times, “I will kill the old rascal;” and, the last time, he said, “I will kill him and you may see it.” Another witness gave...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Godwin
... ... These ... motions for change of venue or for special venire were denied ... by the Court below. We think this was in the sound discretion ... of the Court below and no "palpable or gross abuse" ... of discretion is shown ... In ... State v. Hildreth, 1849, 31 N.C. 429, 51 Am.Dec ... 364, Ruffin, C. J., said: "It is the province of the ... Court, in which the trial takes place, to judge of the truth ... or sufficiency of the causes assigned for a motion for a ... continuance or removal of a trial. It must be so; else it ... would be in ... ...
-
State v. Hart
... ... peril, otherwise, of partaking of the guilt. It is necessary, ... in order to have that effect, that he should do or say ... something, showing his consent to the felonious purpose and ... contributing to its execution, as an aider and abettor." ... Ruffin, C.J., in State v. Hildreth, 31 N.C. 440, 51 ... Am. Dec. 364 ... To like ... effect is the language of Chief Justice Smith of the Supreme ... Court of Mississippi in the recent case of Crawford v ... State, 97 So. 534: ... "In ... order for one to aid and abet the commission of ... ...
-
State v. Taylor
... ... put by the first clause of the instruction do not preclude ... the jury from finding that [57 W.Va. 241] the shooting was ... done in hot blood, and therefore constituted only ... manslaughter. State v. Scott, 36 W.Va. 704, 15 S.E ... 405; State v. Hildreth, 31 N.C. 429, 51 Am.Dec. 369, ... holding that: "Where two persons engage in sudden ... combat, and, after they become heated thereby, one of them ... seizes a deadly weapon, or uses one in his hands, having no ... intention to use it when the combat commenced, and slays his ... adversary, ... ...
-
State v. Partlow
...113; Reg. v. Smith, 8 Car. & P. 160; Slaughter's case, 11 Leigh 681; Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142; Adams v. People, 47 Ill. 376; State v. Hildrette, 9 Ired. 429; State v. Hogue, 6 Jones Law (N. C.) 381; v. Martin, 2 Ired. 101; Atkins v. State, 16 Ark. 568; Cotton v. State, 31 Miss. 504; Ste......