State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 18 October 1887 |
| Parties | STATE v. JONES. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Evidence of a struggle is not sufficient to cast a doubt upon defendant's malice, nor to raise a presumption that the killing was done in a moment of passion, where, with the other circumstances shown, it was as consistent with premeditated malice as with heat of passion.
The Attorney General, for the State.
W. W Clark, for defendant.
The defendant was tried upon an indictment for the murder of Tempy S. Jones, his wife, before SHIPP, J., at the spring term, 1887, of the superior court of Craven.
The mother of the deceased testified that on the day before the alleged murder the defendant came to her house, where his wife was staying, about dark; that he and his wife seemed very affectionate towards each other; that defendant stated that he came to take his wife across Neuse river to Mr Kirkman's, where he was working; that he and his wife left the house on the next morning, Sunday, May 1st, about 9 o'clock, and went in the direction of the river; that she saw the body of the deceased on Tuesday, the third of May after it had been taken from the river, and that there were marks of finger-nails on the throat. She further testified that some time before the death of the deceased the defendant asked her for a divorce, and upon her refusing the defendant said he would have one anyhow. The defendant lived with his wife till October, 1886, when he went off and left her at witness' house; that he furnished her no support after that, and did not visit her till about two weeks before her death. Witness further testified that she found a piece of cloth in Pierce Ransom's boat, which deceased had carried from her house when she left on Sunday.
The father of the deceased testified substantially to the same facts, with the addition that on the night before the alleged killing the defendant seemed restless. That he had heard the deceased say, in the presence of the defendant, several months before the killing, that the defendant had struck her, and would have killed her, if she had not prevented it.
Pierce Ransom testified that he saw the deceased and the defendant, with a child in his arms, going towards Neuse river, on Sunday morning, about 11 o'clock; the defendant had a walking stick under his arm. The deceased was lagging behind, carrying a bag of clothes. She looked troubled and was looking back. The defendant said to her: "Why in the hell don't you come on; you will repent your bargain before you get where you are going." This was about one mile from the river. Witness joined in the search for the body of deceased on Monday. He had three boats, which were locked and chained, on the side of the river on which he had seen the defendant and deceased. He found one of his boats on the opposite side of the river, about a mile below where it had been chained, near where the body was found. The chain had been broken from the boat, and left where it had been fastened. He found a walking stick in the boat, which was the same that he had seen under the arms of the defendant on Sunday. The boat was of large capacity, and showed no signs of having been swamped or sunk. He saw the body of the deceased after it was recovered, and it had thirteen finger-nail marks on the throat, and a bruise on the nose. This witness also testified that when he saw the defendant and child on Sunday, the child had a fan.
Mary Hayes testified that about 4 o'clock, on Sunday afternoon, the defendant stopped at her house about a mile from the river on the opposite side from where he was in the morning. The defendant said he had met with a great trouble; that, while crossing the river with his wife and child, the boat, which had a hole in the head, filled and sank in the river, and his wife was drowned; that his wife said: "I pray the Lord that you may be able to save yourself and the baby; you can't save me." That after reaching the shore he looked back; but never saw either his wife or the boat. That he swam out with the child and bag of clothes; that he remained at the river three or four hours after his wife was drowned, looking for her. This witness further testified that the defendant was wet up to his waist, that the child was wet on one side, and the bag was wet on the end; that the defendant had a paper fan, which he said he had found in a house on the side of the river on which he then was; the fan was not wet. That there was a slough, about waist deep, between the house and the river, which the defendant had to cross in coming from the river. Witness proposed to go with the defendant to search for his wife's body, but defendant said he would wait till next morning.
Other witnesses testified to the same, substantially, as the last witness. Two other witnesses testified that they saw the defendant about a quarter of a mile from the house of Mary Hayes after he had been seen by her, to whom he gave, substantially, the same account as that given by her. They also testified that the defendant and child and clothes were wet, and that the defendant had a fan.
Several witnesses testified as to the finding of the body, whose statements were substantially the same, and, in substance that the boat...
To continue reading
Request your trial