State v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 30 June 1879 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM ROBERTS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for a Misdemeanor under Bat. Rev., ch. 32, § 95, tried at Spring Term, 1879, of BUNCOMBE Superior Court, before Gudger, J.
The bill charged that the defendants, William Roberts, James Dixon and others did wilfully and unlawfully abuse and kill one hog, the property of M. M. Harper, in an enclosure not surrounded by a lawful fence, &c. The facts constituting the grounds of the exception taken in the court below appear in the opinion. Verdict of guilty as to William Roberts, judgment, appeal by defendant.
Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. J. M. Gudger, for the defendant .
On the trial, Harper was put on the stand as a witness for the state, and the defendant in his cross-examination asked him if he had not said to one Erwin Wells, “that rather than be outdone by a negro, he would swear any amount of lies;” and also, if he had not admitted on a trial before one Robinson, a justice of the peace, that he had declared “he would have all the corn cut down on Sandy Marsh creek (on which creek he and the defendant resided) and would poison all the stock on said creek.”
To these questions the witness made answer denying the making of such statements, and thereupon the defendant introduced a witness and proposed to contradict said Harper by him as to the said declarations, but on objection His Honor excluded the testimony, to which defendant excepted.
The appeal presents the question as to the correctness of His Honor's ruling in rejecting the proposed evidence, and the solution of the question is to be made in connection with the admission of the defendant in the case of appeal, that the alleged false statements of Harper were not made in reference to this indictment, nor the matters involved in the same, nor in reference to defendants.
The general rule is, that when a witness makes statements in the course of his evidence, and as a part thereof, as to any fact or facts constituting the subject matter under investigation, he may be impeached by proof of statements or representations to the contrary; but as regards statements of a witness drawn out on cross-examination collateral to the investigation, the same are to be taken as conclusive, and it is not admissible to contradict him by showing declarations or statements inconsistent therewith; with an exception, however, that disparaging evidence of inconsistent statements in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hart
...v. Ballard, 97 N.C. 443, 1 S.E. 685; Kramer v. Thomson-Houston Electric Light Co., 95 N.C. 277; State v. Davis, 87 N.C. 514; State v. Roberts, 81 N.C. 605; Jones v. Jones, 80 N.C. 246; Clark v. Clark, 65 N.C. 665; State v. Kirkman, 63 N.C. 246; State v. Sam, supra; State v. McQueen, 46 N.C.......
-
State v. Poolos
...the question and had replied in the negative, the defendant would have been bound by the answer. Clark v. Clark, 65 N.C. 655; State v. Roberts, 81 N.C. 605; State v. Morris, 109 N.C. 820, 13 S.E. 877; State v. Cagle, 114 N.C. 835, 19 S.E. 766; State v. Wilson, 217 N.C. 123, 7 S.E.2d 11; Sta......
-
State v. Rollins
...he was not drunk when it occurred. Had this been pertinent only to impeach his character, his answer would have been conclusive. State v. Roberts, 81 N.C. 605. But it went, rather, to his capacity to know and remember with accuracy what took place. it was error, therefore, to exclude proof ......
-
State v. Witherspoon
...he was not drunk when it occurred. Had this been pertinent only to impeach hischaracter, his answer would have been-conclusive. State v. Roberts, 81 N.C. 605. But it went, rather, to his capacity to know and remember with accuracy what took place. It was error, therefore, to exclude proof o......