State v. Jarrott

• Decision Date: 30 June 1840
• Citation: 1 Ired. 76,23 N.C. 76
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE v. JARROTT, a slave.

1 Ired. 76

23 N.C. 76

THE STATE

v.JARROTT, a slave.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1840.

The great distinction between homicide committed with malice, and that committed in a transport of passion, suddenly excited by a grievous provocation, is as steadily to be kept in view, in the trial of a slave charged with the murder of a white man, as in that of a white man charged with the murder of his equal, or of a slave. But the same matters which would be deemed in law a sufficient provocation to free a white man, who has committed a homicide in a moment of passion, from the guilt of murder, will not have the same effect when the party slain is a white man, and the offender a slave: For though among equals, the general rule is, that words are not, but blows are, a sufficient provocation, yet there may be words of reproach so aggravating when uttered by a slave, as to excite in a white man the temporary fury which negatives the charge of malice; and this rule holds without regard to the personal merit or demerit of the white man.

The insolence of a slave will justify a white man in giving him moderate chastisement with an ordinary instrument of correction at the moment when the insolent language is used, but it will not authorise an excessive battery, as with a dangerous weapon, nor will it justify an attack upon the slave for even moderate correction, if the insolence be past at the time.

The rule that where parties become suddenly heated, and engage immediately in mortal conflict, fighting upon equal terms, and one kills the other, the homicide is mitigated to manslaughter, applies only to equals, and not to the case of a white man and slave, if the slave kill the white man while fighting urder such circumstances.

An ordinary assault and battery, committed by a white man upon a slave, will not be a sufficient provocation to mitigate a homicide of the former by the latter, from murder to manslaughter; but a battery which endangers the slave's life will be a sufficient provocation to produce that result. In the cases between these extremes, that is a legal provocation of which it can be pronounced, having due regard to the relative condition of the white man and the slave, and the obligation of the latter to conform his instinct and his passions to his condition of inferiority, that it would provoke well disposed slaves into a violent passion.

Although there be a legal provocation, yet a homicide will be murder, if committed under such circumstances of cruelty as manifest the thoroughly wicked heart. And cruelty, when the facts from which it is to be inferred all distinctly appear, is an inference of law, and, therefore, properly drawn by the court. But where no more is stated than that several blows were struck with a stick of curled hickory of the ordinary size, and with the larger end thereof, without stating more of the nature of those blows than that one of them was mortal, the facts are not so set forth as to leave the question of cruelty as one for legal inference.

If the weapon, with which a homicide was committed, were not of the character called deadly, that is, likely to produce death or great bodily injury, the homicide would not be murder, although committed without legal provocation. And there are many cases in which the court can distinctly see, from the nature of the instrument used, whether it be of a deadly character or not; and, therefore, need not that the jury should directly find the fact for their information. But where it only appears that the weapon used was a stick of curled hickory of the ordinary size, and that the slayer struck with the larger end thereof, it falls peculiarly in the province of the jury to ascertain whether such a weapon, so used by the slayer, was likely to produce fatal consequences or not. The prisoner, a slave, was indicted at Person, on the last circuit, before his honor Judge DICK, for the murder of one Thomas Chatham, a white man. The Solicitor for the State called, as a witness, one John T. Brooks, a white boy, about fourteen years of age, who stated that he went with the deceased, who was eighteen or nineteen years old, to a fish-trap, in the neighborhood, where several slaves were collected, on Saturday night; that the witness and the deceased were the only white persons present; and that they remained there until about two or three hours before day, when Chatham was killed; that the prisoner and one Jack Hughes, a free negro, played cards, and differed about the game, when they called on the deceased to keep the game for them, which he did for some time, until a second difference took place between the parties, and Hughes refused to play longer; that the prisoner had a twelve and a half cent piece of coin, upon a handkerchief, on which they had been playing--which fell off among the leaves, when he jerked up the handkerchief; that the prisoner, shortly after, went and looked for the piece of money, where it had dropped; and, not finding it, said that he saw his nine pence walk into a white man's pocket, and that any white man who would steal a negro's money, was not too good to unbutton a sheep's collar; that the prisoner further said that the deceased was raised and had lived on stolen sheep; that the prisoner then charged the deceased with stealing his money, and told him if he did not give it up, he would kill him--and brandished a stick over the head of the deceased; that the prisoner further told the deceased that he had his nine pence in his left jacket pocket; upon which the deceased requested the prisoner to search him; which the latter refused to do; that the deceased then turned out his pockets, and the prisoner then cursed him, and told him that he had the money in his shoes; upon which the deceased took off his shoes and stockings; that shortly afterwards, some of the company got a light, and, in searching, found the piece of money in the leaves, near where the deceased stood when he turned out his pockets and pulled off his shoes, and six or seven steps from the spot where the prisoner jerked up his handkerchief, as before stated; that the deceased then took a seat near the fire, and the prisoner continued to abuse him, using very indecent and insolent language towards him; that the deceased then asked the witness for his knife, saying that he wished to cut his nails; that the witness handed his knife to the deceased, who then told the prisoner that if he did not hush, he, the deceased, would stick his knife in him; upon which the prisoner drew his stick, and told the deceased to do it if he dared; that the prisoner continued to use insulting language to the deceased, who took up a piece of a fence rail about as long as the witness's arm, and, having the knife still in his hand, made at the prisoner, and ran him twice around the fire, and then ran him off, and returned, himself, to the fire; that the prisoner soon after returned within ten or eleven steps of the fire, and said something, which the witness did not understand; upon which the deceased took up the piece of rail, and, having the knife still open in his hand, went towards the prisoner; that the witness then heard two blows, and, upon going to the place, found the deceased on the ground. The witness described the stick of the prisoner to be about three feet long, made of curled hickory, about the size of a common walking cane, larger at the butt end, and with a string attached to the small end, to fasten around the prisoner's wrist. The knife was exhibited in court; and was a common-sized pocket knife--the blade about three inches long, and sharp at the point.

A negro slave, by the name of Isaac, was then called as a witness for the State; and concurred, in most points, with the witness Brooks. He stated that the deceased and the prisoner gave each other the damned lie, when talking about the nine pence; and also, that the prisoner had his stick in his hand during the quarrel; but, he did not see him shake it over the deceased's head. He stated, also, that after the money was found, the quarrel ceased for a short time--perhaps fifteen minutes--when the deceased renewed the quarrel, and swore he would kill the prisoner, and made at him, as described by the witness Brooks. Isaac also stated that, as the deceased approached the prisoner, he heard the latter tell him not to hit or strike him. The witness heard a blow, and, upon looking towards the parties, saw the deceased falling, and saw the prisoner strike him four or five blows with the stick above spoken of. In all his other statements, this witness fully sustained Brooks.

Nathan Jones, a free negro, was next examined by the State. He fully sustained Brooks, except that he concurred with Isaac in stating that there was a (essation in the quarrel, and that the deceased renewed it. This witness also stated that the prisoner did not shake his stick over the head of the deceased; but had it drawn back in a striking position. He also stated that he heard a blow, and looked at the parties, when he saw the deceased on the ground, and the prisoner strike him three or four blows, with the stick before described. Two witnesses, who were examined on that subject, stated that the deceased had two wounds on the back part of the head, each about two inches in length; and one of the witnesses said that he inserted his finger about one fourth of an inch into one of the wounds, and found no resistance to its entrance. The deceased was described, by one witness, as small and slender for a boy of his age; and by another, as not tall, but stoutly built. The prisoner was about six feet high, and of the ordinary size of negroes of that...