State v. Roseman

• Decision Date: 24 March 1891
• Citation: 12 S.E. 1039,108 N.C. 765
• Parties: STATE v. ROSEMAN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

12 S.E. 1039

108 N.C. 765

STATE v. ROSEMAN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 24, 1891

Appeal from superior court, Rowan county; BYNUM, Judge.

The indictment charges that the defendant made an assault upon the prosecutrix "with a certain deadly weapon, to-wit, a club of the length of three feet, and one inch in diameter," etc. He pleaded not guilty. On the trial it appeared that the prosecutrix was confined in the common jail of Rowan county, and the defendant was the keeper of the jail; that on one night she sang and made much disagreeable noise, to the discomfort of defendant's wife, who was lying in a room of the first story of the jail, and very ill that the prosecutrix refused to obey the jailer's command to cease making noise, etc., whereupon he "carried her down [she was confined on the third floor] to the second floor, and whipped her; that witness did not see him whipping her, as he [witness] was on the third floor, but he heard the licks, and heard the woman hollowing; that he hit her fifteen or twenty licks, some of the prisoners said twenty-eight that he then brought her back up stairs; her arms and back were cut and bleeding; that some of the prisoners told him he ought not to have whipped that woman that way, and that defendant said he had whipped her with a buggy whip," etc. The prosecutrix testified, among other things, that the defendant "carried her down to the second floor, got a whip, and whipped her; that she did not know how many licks he gave her; that she had on nothing but her chemise; her arms and neck were bare; that he cut the blood out of her arms and back; that it did not disable her; that the places healed up in a week or two; that the defendant did not take the shackles off her when he whipped her," etc. There was evidence tending to show that the prosecutrix was a low bad woman, etc.; that the defendant had directed her to hush and she would not, etc. that his wife was very ill, etc. There was a verdict of guilty, and judgment thereupon that the defendant pay a fine of $100, from which he appealed to this court, assigning as error--First, that the court had not jurisdiction; and, secondly, that the fine was excessive.

John W. Mauney, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

MERRIMON C.J., (after stating the facts as above.)

Clearly the court had jurisdiction. The indictment charges an assault with a deadly weapon, describing it, and that serious injury was done. The evidence certainly tended to prove that the assault...