State v. Robertson

• Decision Date: 28 February 1882
• Citation: State v. Robertson, 86 N.C. 628 (N.C. 1882)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. O. T. ROBERTSON.

86 N.C. 628

STATE

v.O. T. ROBERTSON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1882.

INDICTMENT for keeping disorderly house, tried at January Term, 1882, of WAKE Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.

Verdict of guilty, judgment, appeal by defendant.

Attorney General, for the State .

Messrs. Argo & Wilder, for defendant .

SMITH, C. J.

The indictment is for keeping a disorderly house, and the exceptions apparent upon the record are to the admission of certain testimony offered to support the charge. These we proceed to consider.

1. A witness for the state who had frequently passed the defendant's shop in the early morning and late at night, and had seen there drinking and disorderly crowds, was asked whether the female members of his family were permitted to go along the road leading by the shop on their way to the Sunday school, on account of its character. The testimony on objection was received as some evidence of disturbance and annoyance.

The testimony is admitted solely to show the inconvenience to the family which prevented the use of a public road, passing by the house of the defendant. Thus restricted we see no just objection to its being heard by the jury. The witness spoke of the condition and character of the place from personal observation, and it was not improper to allow him to say what were the consequences to the other persons of his family.

2. Another witness had testified to the disorderly character of the house, and to his having come to the solicitor at the instance of another to report a case of retailing liquor without license, against the defendant, and had then mentioned the disorderly conduct of the defendant, and was cross-examined at great length upon those matters, in order to prove his ill-will and prejudice towards the accused, when His Honor remarked that the counsel had carried the examination in that direction far enough, and that it was the duty of a good citizen to report crime when inquired of by the solicitor. The exception is to the latter part of the remark, as violating the act of 1796.

We think the expression used was pertinent and proper; and correct in itself. It certainly becomes a law abiding citizen to convey, not to withhold, any information he may possess, when interrogated by the prosecuting officer of the state, and the act is not to his discredit. His activity in bringing about a prosecution may be inquired into to show the bias or ill-will of the witness, and this His Honor did not interfere with, until the examination had become needlessly protracted; and this was within the discretion of the court, when no right is denied and no material information withheld. We are unable to see how the enunciation of a correct proposition, not calculated to mislead, can be deemed a judicial impropriety or an intimation to the jury of an...