State v. Hunter

• Citation: 143 N.C. 607,56 S.E. 547
• Parties: STATE. v. HUNTER.
• Decision Date: 19 February 1907
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

143 N.C. 607

56 S.E. 547

STATE.

v.HUNTER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 19, 1907.

1. Criminal Law—Evidence—Trailing by Bloodhounds.

On a trial for arson a witness testified that defendant had a peculiar track; that he knew his track well, and that no one else in the neighborhood made such tracks; that the tracks found on the morning following the fire about the burned building were defendant's, and that the tracks led from the burned building to the road leading to defendant's house. The owner of a bloodhound testified that his dog was a clear-blooded English bloodhound, well trained to track human beings; had often been used for that purpose, and would not track anything else; and that he put the dog on these tracks the afternoon succeeding the fire. Held, that evidence that the dog followed the tracks up to and across the road, when he seemed to catch the scent of something in the air, whereupon he broke off through the woods and finally treed defendant, was competent.

2. Same — Appeal — Review — Discretion of Court—Continuance.

The refusal of a mistrial and continuance after the evidence is all in rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and is not reviewable.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, § 3053.]

3. Arson—Trial—Question for Jury.

In a prosecution for arson, evidence held to require submission of defendant's guilt to the jury.

4. Criminal Law—Evidence—Trailing of Bloodhounds—Corroborating Other Evidence.

In a prosecution for arson, the trailing by a bloodhound of tracks, testified to on the part of the state as being defendant's, to defendant, though not substantive evidence upon which a conviction could be had, is evidence in corroboration of the state's testimony as to the identity of the tracks.

Appeal from Superior Court, Gates County; McNeill, Judge.

Thos. H. Hunter was convicted of feloniously burning a storehouse in the nighttime, and he appeals. Affirmed.

L. L. Smith and Aydlett & Ehringhaus, for appellant.

The Attorney General and W. M. Bond, for the State.

CLARK, C. J. Indictment for feloniously burning a storehouse in the nighttime. There was evidence that the ground behind the storehouse was soft and had been freshly plowed, and witness testified that next morning the prisoner's tracks were found there, leading off from the storehouse; that he had known prisoner all his life, and thatthe prisoner made a peculiar track; that, having had white swelling when a boy, the left leg was two or three Inches shorter than the other; that this made him walk on his left toes, the heel of that foot not touching the ground, unless that foot went very deep into the ground; that he knew prisoner's track well, and that these were his tracks; that no one else in that neighborhood made such tracks; that these tracks were plain and distinct; that they led up behind the ginhouse, so that the person making them was screened from the dwelling house, and led again off to the road which went to the prisoner's house. Another witness testified that he carried his bloodhound there the afternoon succeeding the fire; that the tracks were peculiar (and such as were described by first witness); that his dog is a clear-blooded English bloodhound, well trained to track human beings, has often used him for that purpose, and that the dog will track nothing else; that he put the dog on these tracks; that the dog followed them through the field and across the road, when he seemed to catch the scent of something in the air, whereupon he broke of through the woods, and when witness got up with the dog he had treed prisoner up a dogwood tree; that the prisoner said to witness, "What does this mean? I didn't do it"; that they took off prisoner's shoes, and they fitted the tracks exactly. There was evidence for prisoner and by him, and evidence that his character was bad, but it is unnecessary to state prisoner's evidence, as the jury found for the state, and the exceptions are: (1) The admission of any evidence of the conduct of the dog; (2) the refusal of a mistrial and a continuance that the prisoner might obtain other evidence; (3) the refusal to charge that there was no evidence to go to the jury; (4) that, though the court gave the prisoner's prayer that "the acts and doings of the dog are not evidence upon...