State v. Trexler

Decision Date31 January 1815
Citation4 N.C. 188,2 Car. L. Rep. 90
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. TREXLER.

1. When there is one continuing transaction, though there may be several distinct asportations in law, yet the party may be indicted for the final carrying away, and all who concur are guilty, though they were not privy to the first or the intermediate acts.

2. The snatching a thing unawares is not considered a taking by force; but if there be a struggle to keep it, or any violence done to the person, the taking is robbery.

3. Where the prosecutor accidentally, in the presence of the prisoner, dropped some papers out of his pocketbook, among others a bank note of $100. and the prisoner took it up and refused to deliver it, whereupon a struggle ensued between the prosecutor and the prisoner for the possession of the note, which resulted in the prisoner's retaining possession and running off with the note, it was held that, as the bank note was not the subject of larceny, it was a forcible trespass.

THE defendant had been tried and found guilty on an indictment for a trespass in taking from Hughes, the prosecutor, a bank note of $100. On a motion for a new trial, it was agreed that this Court should decide whether the facts alleged in the following affidavit of Hughes, the prosecutor, constitute an indictable trespass or not, and a new trial to be awarded or refused, accordingly.

AFFIDAVIT

"On the 5th day of June, in the year 1809, this deponent was walking on the pavement near John Trexler's house in the town of Salisbury, and stopped at Trexler's door to inquire of him how the frame of Mull's house went together at the raising, at which time Trexler invited deponent into his house. After some conversation, deponent asked Trexler to go to Pinkston's Tavern, which was the adjoining house, to drink some grog, which he declined, whereupon deponent went to Pinkston's himself, and, after being there a short time, returned to Trexler's house and found Trexler lying on the bed. It was about 11 o'clock in the

forenoon. Upon being invited to sit, deponent took a chair and sat upon it near the foot of the bed on which Trexler then lay. Trexler asked deponent how he came on with his affairs, which were then in a critical situation, to which deponent replied, 'Bad enough,' but he was then preparing to go to Virginia for the purpose of collecting a judgment due to him there, which, he hoped, would enable him to prosecute his business with greater advantage. Deponent further stated that he was then going to Mr. Evan Alexander's to settle with him, and receive a balance due, at which Trexler expressed some surprise that Mr. Alexander should be in deponent's debt, and that he should have delayed payment so long. Deponent said that Trexler need not be surprised at it, and drew out his pocketbook to show him a statement of the account; in doing which some papers which had been in the pocket-book fell upon the floor. Deponent then laid his pocketbook, with the remainder of the papers, on the foot of the bed and turned round to pick up those which had fallen. In the meantime Trexler changed his position on the bed, and lay with his head towards the foot of the bed, as deponent thought, for the purpose of being more conveniently situated to see the papers. As he then lay, the pocketbook and papers were immediately before him. While deponent was picking up the papers from the floor, Trexler said he thought that deponent was very careless with his papers. Deponent replied, Yes, and looking round, observed Trexler, in a secret way, opening a note of the Bank of the United States for $100, which deponent had carefully placed in the pocketbook that morning for the purpose of having it changed for the other money. In attempting to take the bank note out of Trexler's hands the bank note was fully opened, and Trexler clinched his hand upon it, and refused to give it up, saying that he would not give it up unless deponent would tell him what it was. Deponent at first observed that it was no business of his what it was; but that it was money, and putting up the pocketbook and papers, finding Trexler still refusing to give up the bank note, deponent jumped upon him as he lay on the bed, to endeavor to force it from him. After struggling with him for some time deponent told Trexler that he would spoil the bill, upon which he said if deponent would let him get up, he would return it. As soon as deponent permitted him to rise from the bed, Trexler attempted to make hisescape from the room in which he then was, to another room. Deponent seized him a second time, and endeavored, partly by force and partly by intercession, to induce him to return it; Trexler still refusing to return it, and at the same time insisting that deponent should tell him what it was, upon which deponent at length said, 'To be plain with you, John, it is a bank note of one hundred dollars.' As soon as deponent

had made this declaration, Trexler whooped and made a great noise, said it was more, and swore he would not take $500 for it. Trexler then made his escape into another room, where there was a desk, and while deponent was struggling with him at the desk he took out of the desk a red Morocco pocketbook, after which the bank note...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Baker
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1949
    ...others are legislative creations. State v. Phipps, 32 N.C. 17; State v. Love, 19 N.C. 267; State v. Flowers, 6 N.C. 225; State v. Trexler, 4 N.C. 188, 6 Am.Dec. 558; G.S.Ch. 14, art. 22. They fall into three when tested by their social objectives. Some, e. g., the crime of unlawfully cuttin......
  • State v. Oliver
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 10, 1993
    ...the offense of robbery the property taken must be such as is the subject of larceny." Guffey at 333, 144 S.E.2d at 16. See State v. Trexler, 4 N.C. 188 (1815); 46 Am.Jur. Robbery § 8 at p. 142 (1943). The indictment in the instant case describes the property as "drugs and United States curr......
  • State v. Rogers, 247
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1968
    ...is the subject of robbery. To constitute the offense of robbery the property taken must be such as is the subject of larceny. State v. Trexler, 4 N.C. 188; 46 Am.Jur., Robbery, s. 8, p. 142. * * * ' State v. Guffey, 265 N.C. 331, 144 S.E.2d 14. In the instant case there is allegation and pr......
  • State v. Partlow, 271
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1967
    ...is the subject or robbery. To constitute the offense of robbery the property taken must be such as is the subject of larceny. State v. Trexler, 4 N.C. 188; 46 Am.Jur., Robbery, See. 8, p. Former jeopardy, being based on the fundamental legal principal that a person cannot be tried twice for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT