State v. Oliver
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Citation | 70 N.C. 60 |
| Parties | STATE v. RICHARD OLIVER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The doctrine of years ago, that a husband had the right to whip his wife, provided, he used a switch no larger than his thumb, no longer governs the decisions of our Courts: and the opinion, more in accordance with our present civilization, that a husband has no legal right to chastise his wife under any circumstances, prevails.
INDICTMENT, for an Assault and Battery, tried before his Honor, Judge Mitchell, at the Fall Term, 1873, of ALEXANDER Superior Court.
On the trial, the jury found the following facts:
Defendant came home intoxicated one morning after breakfast was over; got some raw bacon, said it had skippers on it, and told his wife she would not clean it. He sat down and eat a little, when he threw the coffee cup and pot into the corner of the room, and went out; while out, he cut two switches, brought them in, and throwing them on the floor, told his wife that if he whipped her, she would leave; that he was going to whip her, for she and her d--d mother had aggravated him near to death. He then struck her five licks with the two switches, which were about four feet long, with the branches on them, about half way, and some leaves. One of the switches was about half as large as a man's little finger, the other not so large. He had them in both hands, and inflicted bruises on her arm, which remained for two weeks, but did not disable her from work.
One of the witnesses swore he struck as hard as he could. Others were present, and after defendant had struck four licks, told him to desist. Defendant stopped, saying if they had not been there he would have worn her out.
Upon these facts the Court found defendant guilty, and fined him $10. Defendant appealed.
Armfield, for defendant .
Attorney General Hargrove, for the State , called the attention of the Court to the cases of State v. Black, Winst. 266; Mabry's case, 64 N. C. Rep., 592; State v. Rhodes, Phill. 453; Hussey's case, Busb. 123, and Pendergrass, 2 Dev. & Bat. 365.
We may assume that the old doctrine, that a husband had a right to whip his wife, provided he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not law in North Carolina. Indeed, the Courts have advanced from that barbarism until they have reached the position, that the husband has no right to chastise his wife, under any circumstances.
But from motives of public policy,--in order to preserve the sanctity of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosier v. Carney
... ... In view of the importance of the legal principles involved, we requested the negligence law section of the State bar association to submit a brief amicus. Indicative of the present ambivalence of thought upon this question is the fact that two briefs were in ... Abbott, 67 Me. 304, 24 Am.Rep. 27, wherein the court dismissed an interspousal suit in these terms: 'As said by Settle, J., in State v. Oliver, 70 N.C. 60, 'it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive." 67 Me. 304, 307 ... ...
-
State v. Falkner
... ... Rhodes, 61 ... N.C. 455, 98 Am. Dec. 78, speaking for unanimous courts, that ... a husband had a right to thrash his wife, even without any ... provocation, with the restriction only that he could not ... permanently injure her. In less than 10 years thereafter, in ... State v. Oliver, 70 N.C. 60, while both those judges were ... still on the bench, and counsel, as shown by his brief ... printed in the report of the case, relied upon those (then) ... recent decisions, Judge Settle speaking for a unanimous ... court, curtly said (with their approval), without deigning to ... ...
-
Hodes & Nauser, MDS, P.A. v. Schmidt
... ... Hodes, M.D.; and Traci Lynn Nauser, M.D., Appellees, v. Derek SCHMIDT, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Kansas; and Stephen M. Howe, in His Official Capacity as District Attorney for Johnson County, Appellants. No. 114,153 Supreme Court of Kansas ... Feltmeier , 333 Ill. App. 3d 1167, 1169 n.1, 777 N.E.2d 1032, 268 Ill.Dec. 109 (2002) ; State v. Oliver , 70 N.C. 60, 61 (1874). The common-law spousal exception to rape continued 440 P.3d 491 in this country for nearly 200 years. See Shunn v. State ... ...
-
Austin v. Austin
... ... husband, of course, no cause of action would lie. But can it ... be said in this enlightened age and in the state which ... enacted the first Married Woman's Act that this barbaric ... relic of antiquity still prevails ... If the ... wife is, in the ... lash of the husband till nine years later in 1874, when in ... State v. Oliver, 70 N.C. 60, SETTLE, J., ... tersely said: We have 'advanced from that barbarism.' ... His authority for making such ruling was that chapter 5, ... ...
-
COMMENTS: MINDING THE GAP IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGISLATION: SHOULD STATES ADOPT COURSE OF CONDUCT LAWS?
...United States who recognized a husband's prerogative to chastise his wife."). (18) Id. at 2120. (19) Id. at 2158 (quoting State v. Oliver, 70 N.C. 60, 61-62 (20) See CYNTHIA GRANT BOWMAN, LAURA A. ROSENBURY, DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER & KIMBERLY A. YURACKO, FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE: CASES AND MA......