State v. John
| Decision Date | 31 December 1857 |
| Citation | 5 Jones 163,69 Am.Dec. 777,50 N.C. 163 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHN, (a slave.) |
It appeared that while the prosecutor and prisoner were examining a banknote, which the latter had produced, the prosecutor felt the prisoner's hand in his pocket on his pocket-book, and immediately seized his arm, the prisoner at the same time snatching the bill, a scuffle ensued, in which the prosecutor was thrown down, and the prisoner escaped with the pocket-book and bank-note, Held (BATTLE, J., dubitante,) not to be robbery, but only a case of larceny.
INDICTMENT for HIGHWAY ROBBERY, tried before MANLY, J., at the last Fall Term of Caswell Superior Court.
The indictment upon which the prisoner was tried, is as follows:
+--------------------------------------------------+
¦“STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,¦)¦SUPERIOR COURT OF LAW,¦
+-------------------------+-+----------------------¦
¦Caswell County, ¦)¦Fall Term, 1857. ¦
+--------------------------------------------------+
The jurors for the State, upon their oath present, that John, a negro slave, the property of Samuel Watkins, in the county of Caswell aforesaid, on the nineteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty seven, with force and arms in the county aforesaid, in the common and public highway of the State, in and upon one Matthew Brooks, then and there being in the peace of God, feloniously did make an assault, and him, the said Matthew Brooks, in bodily fear and danger of his life in the highway aforesaid, then and there did feloniously put, and one pocket-book, containing divers, to wit, ten, bank-notes, for the payment of divers sums of money, in the whole amounting to a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of two hundred and twenty-eight dollars, of the value of two hundred and twenty-eight dollars, of the goods and chattels of the said Matthew Brooks, in the highway aforesaid, then and there feloniously and violently did steal, take and carry away, contrary to the form of the statute, in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”
There were two other counts in the bill, of the same tenor and effect, except that the second charged the stealing of the bank-notes alone, and the third the pocket-book alone.
The evidence upon the only point considered by this Court was, that on the 19th of June last, the prosecutor, Brooks, was in Milton in the county of Caswell, with a wagon and two horses and a portion of his crop of tobacco; that having sold the tobacco and made some purchases, he drove out of the town intending to camp at a cross-road about three miles distant; that at a short distance outside of the limits of the town, at a bridge across a small stream, he stopped to water his horses, and while so engaged, it being then about dark, a negro came over the bridge from the town, and enquired which of the two roads near by he intended to travel; the witness told him, and, thereupon, the negro passed on along the road indicated; that at the same time, another person came over the bridge and took the other road; that the witness soon overtook the negro, and they travelled on together in occasional conversation, the negro walking and the witness sitting in and driving his wagon, until the negro told the witness that he had found a bill of money in the streets of Milton, and he wanted him to look at it, and tell him how much it was; that the witness objected on account of its being dark, but the negro insisted, and, after some further conversation, not material, a torch light was struck from matches with pine wood, and the bill examined; that the amount of the bill excited his suspicions, and he took particular notice of the negro's face, his clothes, &c.; that while the witness was examining the bill, the negro's hand was felt in his pocket upon his pocket-book; that the witness immediately seized his arm, the negro at the same time snatching the bill of money; that a scuffle ensued, in which the witness was thrown out of the wagon under the tongue, and when he arose the negro was running off, having taken the pocket-book from his pocket, and also the bill of money they were examining; that the pocket-book contained four fifty-dollar bills, a ten, several fives and a two, making in all two hundred and twenty-seven dollars; that the struggle occurred at a point in the public road about a mile from Milton, at about nine o'clock; that the negro in question, was a large and powerful-looking man. He also testified that the prisoner was the negro of whom he had spoken.
The case below turned chiefly upon the identity of the prisoner with the assailant described by the witness; and many exceptions were taken by the prisoner to the ruling upon questions as to the evidence offered by the State, and to the charge of his Honor, but as the consideration of this Court is entirely confined to the sufficiency of the facts to constitute the crime charged, it is not deemed essential to state more of the record sent to this Court.
The prisoner was convicted, and, sentence of death having been pronounced by the Court, he appealed.
K. P. Battle, (who appeared with the Attorney General, for the State,) cited 2 Russell on Crimes and Mis. 71; 2 East's P. C. 711; Roscoe's Crim. Ev. 898, 535; 2 Russ. on C. and M. 670; Lapier's case, 1 Leach's Rep. 320; Moore's case, 1 Leach's Rep. 335; Mason's case, Russ. & Ryan, 419; Wilkinson's case, 1 Hale's P. C. 508; State v. Trexler, 2 Car. L. Repos. 90. He contended that though the struggle might have been to keep possession, it is robbery; for this he cited 2 Russ. on C. and M.; 2 East's P. C. 702, 709; Roscoe's Crim. Ev. Am. Ed. 898; Wharton's Am. Crim. Law, §1701; Arch. Crim. Plea. 452; State v. Trexler, supra; Rex v. Dyer, 2 East's C. L. 767.
He cited and commented on the opposing authorities of Gnosil's case, 1 Car. and P. 304, 11; E. C. L. Rep. 400, and Francis' case, 2 Stra. 1015.)
No counsel appeared for the prisoner in this Court.
Robbery is committed by force; larceny by stealth. The original cause for making highway robbery a capital felony, without benefit of clergy, was, an evil practice, in former days very common, of meeting travellers, and, by a display of weapons, or other force, putting them in fear, (“stand and deliver,”) and in this way taking their goods by force. Hence the indictment (the form is still retained,) contains this allegation: “and him (the person robbed,) in bodily fear and danger of his life, in the highway, then and there, did feloniously put,” and it was for a long time held that the allegation must be proved.
In Foster's Criminal Law, page 128, is this passage:
In Foster's day it would not have occurred to any lawyer, that the facts set out in the record, now under consideration, made a case of highway robbery. There was no violence--no circumstance of terror resorted to for the purpose of inducing the prosecutor to part with his property for the sake of his person.
Violence may be used for four purposes: 1st. To prevent resistance. 2nd. To overpower the party. 3rd. To obtain possession of the property. 4th. To effect an escape. Either of the first two, makes the offence robbery. The last, I presume it will be conceded, does not. The third is a middle ground. In general it does not make the offence robbery, but sometimes, according to some of the cases, it does. It is necessary, therefore, to see how the authorities stand in respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Dinkins, 18-6264
- United States v. Gattis, 16-4663
- McNeil v. United States
-
State v. Richardson
... ... 67 Am.Jur.2d Robbery § 26, at 45-46 (1973) ... Indeed, this Court decided over 125 years ago that the offense of robbery has not been committed unless the essential element of force or intimidation precedes or is concomitant with the taking. State v. John, 50 N.C. 163 (1857). Under an analogous circumstance--the use of force to escape with another's personal property after the property had been seized by stealth--the Court held that the offense of highway robbery was not committed. In John, the evidence tended to show that the defendant had his ... ...