State v. Long

• Decision Date: 31 October 1885
• Citation: 93 N.C. 542
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. THOS. LONG.

93 N.C. 542

STATE

v.THOS. LONG.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October Term, 1885.

INDICTMENT for an assault with intent to ravish, tried before Graves, Judge, and a jury at Fall Term, 1885, of the Superior Court of YADKIN County.

The prosecutrix, Lucy Venable, testified that the defendant assaulted her in an indecent and forcible manner; that he dragged her into the woods and bit her on the face and shoulder; that she screamed and fought him until she forced herself from him.

The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, admitted that he assaulted the prosecutrix, and bit her as alleged, but said he did so because she had snatched his handkerchief, which had ten cents tied up in it, and attempted to run off with it, and when he caught her, she refused to give it up, and struck him on the head with a stick. He denied any intent or attempt to have connexion with her by force or otherwise. A witness for the State testified that he saw the defendant in a few minutes after his struggle with the prosecutrix, and he told him that he had just had a struggle with the prosecutrix; that she offered to allow him to have carnal connexion with her, if he would pay her ten cents, and that he attempted to accomplish his purpose without paying her anything.

There was evidence that the prosecutrix was heard to cry out, about the time of the alleged assault, and that as soon as she reached her father's home, she made known the fact of the assault; and a warrant was issued for the arrest of the defendant.

There was other evidence tending to show that shortly before the alleged assault, the defendant proposed to another colored man to follow her and use force upon her.

His Honor, among other things which were not objected to by the defendant, charged the jury that if they believed that the prosecutrix offered to allow the defendant to have connexion with her for ten cents, and he refused to pay that sum, and attempted to have connexion with her against her will and by force, he would be guilty of the crime charged in the bill of indictment.

To this the defendant excepted. There was a verdict of guilty. Rule for new trial. Rule discharged, and judgment against the defendant, from which he appealed.

Attorney General, for the State .

Messrs. R. F. Armfield and Batchelor & Devereux, for the defendant .

ASHE, J., (after stating the facts).

We are of opinion there was no error in the charge of the Judge. The sole question in the case is, did the defendant attempt to have carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix by force and against her consent? The jury have found the fact...