State v. Ricketts

• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. SOL. RICKETTS.

74 N.C. 187

STATE

v.SOL. RICKETTS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1876.

The rule that a prisoner on trial for perjury can be convicted only upon the testimony of two witnesses, or of one witness supported by corroborating circumstances, does not affect the competency of a witness to the alleged perjury. But if at the close of the case for the prosecution, there be no other witness to the alleged perjury, and no corroborating circumstances, the court will direct a verdict of acquittal.

The court below does not err in refusing to rule out the admissions of the defendant on the ground that they were obtained by undue influence, where it appears by the examination, preliminary to the admission of such evidence, that no such influence was used.

The declarations of the defendant made after the commission of the alleged offence are not competeut evidence in his favor, unless they become a part of the res gestæ.

In this State, in general, every act may be lawfully done on Sunday, which may lawfully be done on any other day, unless there be some statute to the contrary. Receiving the verdict of a jury on Sunday is not forbidden by any statute of this State, and is therefore a lawful and valid act:

( Bland v. Whitfield, 1 Jones 122; State v. Williams, 4 Ired. 400; Sloan v. Wil??iford, 3 Ired. 307, cited and approved; Bullinger v. Marshall, 70 N. C. Rep. cited, distinguished from this and approved.)

INDICTMENT for Perjury, tried betore Buxton J. at Fall Term, 1875, of RICHMOND Superior Court.

The indictment was found at Spring Term, 1875 of Anson Superior Court, and upon affidavit removed to Richmond county.

The perjury was alleged to have been committed by the prisoner while testifying as a witness upon the trial of the issues in a divorce suit, tried at Anson Superior Court at Fall Term, 1874, to-wit: Martin V. Horne v. Mary E. Horne. The petitioner in that case alleged adultery against his wife as ground for the application, and the defendant in her answer alleged adultery against the petitioner, charging him with having committed adultery with one Fanny Horne, a colored woman.

The defendant, a colored person, was a witness for the defendant in the suit. The perjury assigned is that the defendant swore that he saw the said Martin V. Horne at the house where Fanny Horne was; that he went in and saw Martin V. Horne in bed with Fanny Horne, with his clothes off.

Upon the trial John C. McLaughlin testified on the part of the State: “I am Clerk of Anson Superior Court and administered the oath to Sol Ricketts in the usual form, as a witness at Fall Term, 1874, on the trial of the case Martin V. Horne v. Mary E. Horne. I suppose I heard the whole of Sol's evidence. The substance was that about the time the Federal troops passed through the county of Anson he was flying around Fanny Horne, and on one occasion he went to Fanny's house and saw Martin V. Horne there, in bed with Fannie Horne, with his clothes off. That there was no one else in the house except some little children of Fanny's.”

As the prisoner's counsel were about to examine the witness, the Solicitor moved the court that all the witnesses on both sides except the witness on the stand be separated and required to leave the court room. The motion was allowed by the court after objection by the prisoner that the motion ought to have been made before any part of the evidence was received by the court, and came too late after a State's witness was partially examined. The witnesses were all sworn and sent out of the court room. The prisoner excepted.

The Solicitor proposed to examine Martin V. Horne who is the prosecutor and also the husband of Mary E. Horne. The competency of this witness was objected to by the prisoner. The objection was overruled and the witness testified:

“I was present at the trial of the divorce suit in which I was plaintiff and heard Sol. Rickett's testify that he saw me stripped off in bed with Fanny Horne in 1865. This was not so. I never was in bed with Fanny in my life.”

To the ruling of his Honor admitting the testimony of Martin V. Horne the prisoner excepted.

The Solicitor proposed to prove by one William C. Threadgill, that two or three weeks after the trial of the divorce suit he heard the prisoner say “that he never saw what he had said in court he had seen, that he had said so to please some folks.” The prisoner objected on the ground that the confession was obtained by improper influence exerted by Threadgill. The preliminary evidence was as follows: Sol Ricketts was my hired servant, he had been staying with me two years about the jail. I am the jailor of Anson county. I had given him a coat that morning, also a drink. I gave him a drink every morning. It was one half of his rations. I furnished him with clothing. I had it to do. That morning Sol said to me, “Mars William, Mars Martin is mad with me about that court house business.” I replied “Sol, that was pretty heavy, wasn't it.” This was two or three weeks after the trial of the divorce suit. Sol was not then under arrest. I am not positive whether he had been threatened with prosecution or not. I and Martin V. Horne are intimate and Sol knew it. I don't think I held out any inducement.

The Solicitor contended that the evidence was admissible. The counsel for the prisoner again objected. The court overruled the objection and the prisoner excepted. The witness then testified as follows: “Sol. then said he never saw what he had said in the court house he had seen. That he had said so to please some folks, or the old folks. I forget which expression he used, ‘some folks' or ‘old folks.’ He used to belong to the Ricketts, the parents of Mary E. Horne. The morning he told me this I gave him a coat. My doing so had nothing to do with what he told me. He said he was afraid to go up town, that Martin was mad with him.”

The defendant introduced as a witness one Enniss

Edwards, who testified as follows:

“About two weeks after the trial of the divorce suit, I and Sol. Ricketts were sitting on the store steps of Mr. Huntley, in Wadesboro, talking together of going off to work. Martin V. Horne and William C. Threadgill came along and called Sol. off, and spoke to him. I was out of hearing and did not hear what was said. Another man, named Threadgill, came along and he and William C. Threadgill and Martin V. Horne went into a grocery, and I called Sol. back to me.”

Here the prisoner's counsel proposed to prove that Sol. Ricketts, when he came back to the witness, informed him that he had told William C. Threadgill and Martin V. Horne what he had testified to on the trial was true. The counsel of the prisoner contended that this was competent as corroboratory of the truth of the prisoner's evidence.

The court excluded the evidence because the statement was not made by the prisoner to the witness in the hearing of the prosecutor, and because it was made after the trial upon which the perjury was alleged to have been committed, and so came within the general rule excluding declarations of the accused after the fact.

The defendant again excepted.

The trial occurred on Saturday of the first week of the term, and was protracted into the night. The jury retired about 10 o'clock. Before leaving the bench, his Honor inquired of the counsel on both sides if they were content that the Clerk should take the verdict. They both replied “yes.” His Honor then left the courthouse. The jury remained all night and rendered a verdict of ““guilty,” at 8 o'clock on Sunday...