State v. Spray

• Decision Date: 19 December 1893
• Citation: 18 S.E. 700,113 N.C. 686
• Parties: STATE v. SPRAY et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

18 S.E. 700

113 N.C. 686

STATE v. SPRAY et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 19, 1893

Appeal from superior court, Swain county; Boykin, Judge.

Prosecution of N.W. Spray and others for disturbing a school. The jury rendered a special verdict, on which the court adjudged defendants not guilty, and the state appeals. Affirmed.

The special verdict was as follows:

"The jury find that Big Cave Indian schoolhouse was built, as to the walls and roof thereof, by the Cherokee Indians, and the building thus made was paid for out of the common school fund. That the building was finished and furnished under the direction of the Society of Friends, and paid for partly out of the church fund and partly out of the money furnished by the United States for that purpose. There was in the house a box of books, the property of the defendant Spray. The schoolhouse had been under the supervision of the Society of Friends as a day school, and had been leased, so far as their right extended, to their agent, Spray. There had not been any school taught since May, 1892. The house was after that taken possession of by the committee men of the common school had in December, 1892. The school committee employed Lula Hayes to teach the school for Indians in that house and she went in, and began to teach. After she had taught three or four days, the defendant Spray went to the schoolhouse, and notified her that she could not occupy the house to teach in until the property rights therein were adjusted. That for a few days she, the said Lula Hayes, did not teach therein. That she began to teach in the same house on the 8th of December, and taught three days. That on the morning of the 12th of December she went to the schoolhouse for the purpose of continuing to teach her school. That on that morning, when she went there, the schoolhouse was occupied by the defendants, and she asked to be allowed to occupy the house, and to teach her school and the defendant Spray forbade her,--the defendant Blythe being in the house. That she was prevented by the conduct of the defendants from occupying the house, and teaching therein. That there were no pupils present at the time of this occurrence, and none came before she left it; but, on leaving, she met three scholars on their way to school about a mile from the schoolhouse. If, upon these facts, the defendants are guilty in law, we find them guilty; but, if otherwise, we find

...