State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 72 N.C. 345 |
| Parties | STATE v. AUSTIN HILL, CORNELIUS WILLIAMS ET ALFRED WALKER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
In an indictment against three for murder, charging that H, one of the prisoners, fired the gun, and that the other two were present, aiding and abetting: Held, that it was not error in the Court below, to charge the jury, that if either of the prisoners fired the gun, the others, being present aiding and abetting, were equally guilty.
Where, in an affidavit filed for the removal of a prisoner's case, the facts, whereon the belief is founded are set forth, so that in the language of the statute “the Judge may decide upon such facts whether the belief is well founded,” the Judge acquires complete and final jurisdiction, his decision not being the subject of review by this Court.
INDICTMENT FOR MURDER, tried before Henry, J., at Fall Term, 1874, NORTHAMPTON Superior Court.
The defendant Austin Hill, upon affidavit moved for the removal of the case from Northampton county. The following is the affidavit upon which the motion was based, to wit:
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦“State ¦)¦
+-------------------------------------------------+-¦
¦v. ¦)¦
+-------------------------------------------------+-¦
¦Austin Hill, Cornelius Williams and Alfred Waker.¦)¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
The defendant Austin Hill makes oath that there are probable grounds to believe that justice cannot be obtained in this county, and he founds his belief upon the fact that the case has been very much canvassed and talked about by all clases of people in said county, greatly to his prejudice; many men of position and influence in society have manufactured a prejudice against him, which he fears would prevent justice here.
+-------------------------------+
¦Signed¦AUSTIN his X mark. HILL.¦
+-------------------------------+
The motion was overruled by the Court and the defendant excepted.
The defendant Hill, with the other defendants, then moved for a severance. The motion was overruled and the defendants excepted.
Mrs. Presson, the widow of deceased, was introduced as a witness on the part of the State, and testified as follows:
That soon after the clock struck nine P. M. she, her husband and the family retired, that soon thereafter some person spoke from the top of the hill, saying that Dr. Ramsay had two horses, which he wished the deceased to put in the stable. She did not recognize the voice of that person, and did not know who it was. The deceased got out of bed, put on his shoes and no other clothing, and went up on the hill towards the lot. In a few minutes thereafter, she heard a noise like a slamming, and a few minutes afterwards a person came to the door of her house and said, “Miss Alice, your father wants you to send him his pocket book.” Alice got up and looked for the pocket book; while she was looking for the pocket book, the person ran off, and soon thereafter the deceased came in and exclaimed, old Cornelius! old Cornelius! old Cornelius has shot me! He also mentioned the name of Austin Hill, but did not say what Hill had done. No light was then in the house, but the lamp was then lighted and it was discovered that the deceased was wounded in the left side of the neck. About three-quarters of an hour afterwards, the witness and her two daughters went up the hill, and by loud cries aroused the neighbors, all of whom were negroes, to wit: Sam Williams, Wyatt Williams and Jack Norwood, and told them that old Cornelius had shot Mr. Presson. Witness, her two daughters and the three negroes went back and entered the house, when Mr. Presson took the hand of Sam Williams, and told him something, which witness did not hear.
The State next introduced Martha Alice Presson, a daughter of the deceased, aged fifteen, who testified that her father was watchman of the Weldon bridge, that the family retired on the night of the homicide in the following order, to wit: her father first, then her mother, then her sister, then herself. That soon after she retired, some one, whose voice she did not recognize, called from the hill and said Dr. Ramsey had two horses which he wanted cared for. Her father kept stables for the accommodation of persons who go to Weldon from this side of the river. That her father hesitated, but concluded to go, got up and put on his shoes, but before he left the house the clock struck nine. The clock was accurate and kept railroad time. That he had not been gone long before she heard something like a slamming. In about fifteen minutes after he left some one came to the house and told her, her father said send him his pocket book. That she recognized the voice of Austin Hill. The door was left open when he went out, she got up and went by the door that was open and passed through an entrance into the dining room, where her father put his clothes, and she saw a man standing at the door. It was Austin Hill. When she returned from the dining room and stated that she could not find the pocket book, he stepped on the top step, but seeing her father coming from the hill he jumped off and run. He father came in and said “strike a light, old Cornelius has shot me.” She knew Cornelius Williams, her father always called him Cornelius. She stayed in the house with him about half an hour, when her mother, her sister and herself ran up the hill and screamed. Sam Williams, Wyatt Williams and Jack Norwood came to them. In company with them, they returned to the house. Her father took Sam Williams by the hand and told him something, which the witness did not hear.
The State then introduced Thomas Devereux, who testified that on the night of the homicide he was at J. J. Long's, Norwood plantation, and intended to sleep that night out doors, under a tree, but had not gone to sleep. That about half past eight o'clock he heard a noise as of the feet of horses, apparently going rapidly in the direction of Meed Castle, which is the way to the place of the homicide. On cross examination the defendant's counsel asked the witness if he did not believe in ghosts, and if he had not frequently heard the noise of ghost horses, and if he could tell the difference of the sound made by real horses?
The witness responded that he had frequently heard the noise of ghost horses, but could tell the difference between that and real horses. His mind manifested to him the difference.
The Solicitor then asked the witness if he was not an illiterate person, not having had the benefit of an education, to which the witness replied that he was.
The witness left the stand, his Honor remarked to the counsel that one of North Carolina's most distinguished Judges was said to have believed in ghosts.
The defendant Williams relied upon an alibi.
In his charge to the jury, his Honor said: “It is difficult for any person to swear positively as to time, at night, who has not examined a time piece.”
His Honor charged the jury “that the law as laid down by the counsel (naming him) was correct, and that he charged it as the law in this case,” but did not repeat the language of the counsel.
His Honor also said that if the jury believed the testimony of Martha Alice Presson, the defendant Hill was present at or near the house of the deceased about the time of the homicide.
That the theory of the State was that Alfred Walker stood at the lower gate of the lot. That the evidence did not show that there were two gates to the lot.
The counsel for the defendant Hill asked for the following instruction:
1. Unless the jury can find from the evidence that the gun, when fired, was in the hands of Austin Hill or Cornelius Williams, they must find Austin Hill not guilty.
2. There is no evidence that the gun was in the hands of Austin Hill when fired.
3. If the dying declarations of the deceased are to be believed, the gun was not in the hands of Austin Hill when fired.
The first instruction was denied. As to the second and third, his Honor said that he had already charged the jury that if they believed the defendants were all, or any of them, engaged in the homicide, it was not material who fired the fatal shot, but that all who participated in the deed were equally guilty.
The jury rendered a verdict of guilty. There was a motion for a new trial, the motion overruled and judgment pronounced, and the prisoners...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smarr
...which the lawmaking power has vested in the trial judge, and that his action is not reviewable. State v. Hall, 73 N.C. 134; State v. Hill, 72 N.C. 345; State Hildreth, 31 N.C. 429; State v. Duncan, 28 N.C. 98. These were the uniform decisions, even under the former statute, which was "that ......
-
State v. Smarr
...which the lawmaking power has vested in the trial judge, and that his action is not reviewable. State v. Hall, 73 N. C. 134; State v. Hill, 72 N. C. 345; State v. Hildreth, 31 N. C. 429; State v. Duncan, 28 N. C. 98. These were the uniform decisions, even under the former statute, which was......
-
Albertson v. Terry
...the granting or refusal of such motion is not reviewable. State v. Duncan, 28 N. C. 98; State v. Hildreth, 31 N. C. 429; State v. Hill, 72 N. C. 345; State v. Hall, 73 N. C. 134; State v. Johnson, 104 N. C. 780, 10 S. E. Rep. 257. 2. After the jury was impaneled the defendants moved to nons......
-
State v. Johnson
...but it certainly is not in a case like the present one. Code, § 196; State v. Duncan, 6 Ired. 98; State v. Hildreth, 9 Ired. 429; State v. Hill, 72 N. C. 345; State v. Hall, 73 N. C. 134. There is no error, and the judgment must be ...