State v. Morris

• Decision Date: 17 November 1891
• Citation: 13 S.E. 877,109 N.C. 820
• Parties: State v. Morris.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

13 S.E. 877

109 N.C. 820

State v. Morris.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 17, 1891

Appeal from superior court, Montgomery county; Jesse F. Graves Judge.

Indictment of P. M. Morris for slander. Verdict and judgment of conviction. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

On a trial for slandering an "innocent woman," the husband of the prosecutrix denied, on cross-examination, that he said he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix before he married her. Held that, the answer of the husband involving merely collateral matters, he could not be contradicted by evidence that he had said that he would rather pay $2.50 and marry the woman (the prosecutrix) than have a bastard sworn to him.

The Attorney General and Douglass & Shaw, for the State.

Merrimon C.J.

The defendant is indicted for slandering an "innocent woman" in violation of the statute. Code, § 1113. He pleaded not guilty. On the trial, the prosecutrix was examined as a witness for the state, and, after she was examined in chief, the defendant asked to be allowed to ask the witness one question. The solicitor, not knowing the nature of the question, did not at once object. The defendant then proposed this question: "How many times witness and her husband had separated," and asked the cause. The court said: "You may ask that question if its purpose is to impeach the witness." The counsel said: "We want to show the cause of the separation." The court said "I cannot go into that investigation now;" and defendant excepted. The defendant had had fair opportunity in the orderly course of the examination of the witness, to propound all proper questions, and it was discretionary with the court to allow or disallow the question propounded to be put to the witness. The defendant had no right to protract the examination indefinitely, particularly as to matters that the witness ought to have been examined about upon the cross-examination.

The husband of the prosecutrix was examined as a witness for the state, and on the cross-examination he was asked if he had not told a certain person named that he had sexual intercourse with his wife (the prosecutrix) before he married her. The witness denied that he had said so. The defendant then offered to show, by himself and another witness, that the husband said to them "that he would rather pay two dollars and a half, and marry the woman, [the prosecutrix,] than have a bastard sworn to him." Upon...