State v. SatterfieldState v. Satterfield
*1 568 IN THE SUPREME COURT.
State v. Satterfield. concealed, that is, could not be seen from the outside, they find the should defendant This was guilty.” error. concealed is a Carrying weapons evil and grievous a con- menace to stant order and good peace It is society. who, cruel to the other when he party, in an alter- engages cation, is of the ignorant force he deadly encounters, and the concealmentis hence gist offence. It shows a -on deliberate purpose part offender to take his at a deadly adversary disadvantage. is concealed weapon
Whether from the public, the defendant has whether rebutted the presumption guilt raised when by is shown, are ques- of fact solely tions under proper instructions Court. If the from weapon partly exposed public view, it would be difficult and unreasonable to as a say, conclusion, that it was concealed. legal
New trial. STATE v. S. P. SATTERFIELD.
Indictment Negligence Negli- for Official —Officers—Criminal
gence Trial. —Evidence— tiial of an indictment justified 1. Whether was such as proceeding to verdict—such evidence as would reason- satisfy impartial ably preliminary an question mind—is a for this appeal. Court against the trial of an indictment principal 2. In who was Representatives Clerk of the House of Assembly General bill, negligently permitting a passed, which had not been enrolled, to be delivered to the clerk to be day Assembly the General was about adjourn there Speaker signed including 861 bills question; the one in was the defendant custodian the bills and them in his office frequently; but had to leave liis office that lie had four or five assis- Assembly tant clerks and that members of the General and other persons had access to his that the bill in was tabled N. *. Sattebeield. *2 in the the on and was seen hands of defend- and so mart ed the hack marked, copyist the being that the who enrolled
ant after and bill not defendant and did its did not receive from the notice endorse- speak concerning not to her the ment that defendant did and office, Secretary Subsequently to of the bill was sent the State’’s with upon books; Speakers, the and the signatures Statute Held, the was not to warrant a verdict that evidence sufficient of J., Olaik, J., arguendo, in guilty. (Montgomery, dissents which joins.) for
INDICTMENT the duties discharge liegligencC of House the of Clerk the of of office Representa- Principal of Carolina, General North tried before tives Assembly Wajke Term, a Mclver, J., 1896, and at January a was verdict and defend- Court. There guilty Superior ant to set aside the verdict as moved against motion refused trial, for a new &c. The was and defendant to a fine of and and costs, pay $250 was ap- adjudged pealed. Devereux,
Mr. T. P. for the State. Harris,
Mr. J. L. for defendant O. (appellant). C. J.: The defendant indicted as princi Faircloth, clerk of the House the General Representatives pal to he and to for delivered Assembly causing permitting Act of certain Assemhlj’- clerk pretended to was about and The Assembly adjourn enrollment. hundred and bills 1895, sixty-one three March this bill No. 1018. Speaker, including signed all and them in bills custodian defendant was and had desk, he to from the leave not far Speaker’s his duties in front of attend to and his officefrequently that defendant also necessarily It appeared Speaker. the members and and that other clerks or five assistant four that that, on there was had access persons It the bill confusion. appears and much crowd IN THE SUPREME COURT. Sattickfield. v. tabled on the and ho marked on the back preceding evening of it—-and one witness testified that said bill and others, it, “tabled” was on were seen in the hands of the stamp On defendant. the same for the enroll- day lady copyist and clerk said bill it to her ing returned copied principal. She testified the defendant did not her the bill give never her about and that she did not spoke notice the bill. bill the back of was soon afterwards found on book. referred this much of We have merety situation, show the of it *3 strongest aspect One witness that State. testified one of the assistant clerks had all bills, rvere “sorted” and charge they placed in in holes that desk said assistant pigeon had the this desk all hills where were key and that kept, he had the bills. The custody defendant testified that he had no or information how knowledge clerk enrobing came in bill. said There ten or twelve 'witnesses examined and have we read the whole carofull)’- and we are of evidence, the defendant’s opinion motion arrest have been ought granted. the line a between dirty scintilla and drawing fit for evidence is sometimes difficult and delicate, but is and the Court must important assume the responsi a It is the Court bility. who must preliminary find, not that there is no evidence, absolutely but that the such as would justify proceeding a verdict —such evidence as will an im reasonably satisfy mind. 278; Commissioners v. Clark. 94 S.,U. partial Wasson, C., v. 71 N. 451; v. Railroad, 116 Wittskowsky Young N 110 N. C., 932; C., v. 507. Chancy,
Error. J., The defendant dissenting: undertakes MoNtgomery, that, - himself as a number as by great to defend 861 urging N.
¡Statk u. Sattkiifticld . bills were signed by Speakers when this day one that there was a signed; rush and confu- great mighty sion in the House that that he was day; frequently away from his duties, of his and that discharge his clerks, assistant five or six in number, were not of his own but for him choosing, appointed the House. But all of these combined could-not things relieve from the obli- gation reasonable care in exercising his performing duty in connection with this Indeed particular should they have made him more «.ireful. If there been a thousand bills instead of 361 and the House had been Bedlam and clerks, the number of his twice as were, he great they could have easily taken this out enough one bill batch, after his attention was called to to it as called a bill that had been tabled, and have it where it placed could not have been enrolled. others of duties Although have been might impossible performance matters he owing mentions, there could have yet no excuse for failure to make an effort to prevent this tabled bill from enrolled after his attention had being been called to it.
The indictment contained counts, two first *4 the one charg- that he ing the permitted enrollment and the negligently, second that he did it or had it done knowingly, wilfully and He was on corruptly. convicted the first count. The to only question be necessary decided is whether there was sufficient any evidence tobe submitted to the I do not see it negligence. how admits of a doubt that there was such evidence. The is the following bill, evidence: The House 1018, bill had on its back, with others, endorsement, this “Tabled March 1895,” and, in it fact, had been tabled on that The day. journal House showed no that the bill entry had been tabled. Books
121—71 THE COURT. IN SUPREME » Sattkketbld. the House, clerk o*f the principal were kept by the clerk for all in which were enrolling kept,' receipts him from the clerk. This bill principal bills received by from books was not for 1018 as these receipted Smith, L. 'number. R. member the either title or for session, introduced the bill. Smith the House tliat to that he Speaker place State testified requested and House; that such was taken bill before the course 11th. witness the bill was tabled March further March, 12th that, on the next he saw testified defendant in the of the tabled bill. fol- possession of the- witness Smith on that the exact testimony lowing I March, Satterfield, 12th met “The next Chief clay, point: left of chair and he said he Clerk, at the just Speaker’s I him let it and one of bills. asked vie see what my he, bill, with iff He showed me the he said ivas to do going I told it to the clerk. him he was enrolling going give he was last He said would back and it tabled night. go it. turned towards the desk seeabout lie back prin- is in front of the chair. clerk which Since Speaker’s cipal him, it I met I told then he asked me where was defendant, after seen admitted it.” The he having of the bill as described possession on his to the clerk’s the witness Smith way about he after he had been cautioned when came himself, as a did not the stand witness out give upon bill to what he did with the or one word as time he took have any as to whether put precautions whose clerk, of Mr. the assistant Lillington, duty in a the bills into desk apartments it was place proper for that and which desk he Lillington which kept purpose, himself. locked, By keeping key testimony, bills, such as had the custodian of been- Lillington *5 tabled, the bill was and such as never passed N. 1897. «>.Giioves. in his as far as the
placed evidence discloses. true, it is contradicted the witness Smith as to the nature of the conversation which had when they Smith discovered to the Clerk’s going to have the tabled bill enrolled. The defendant was aware There was a importance conflict, testimony. but both sides of it was a matter for the consideration of the jury. evidence, including defendant’s own testimony,
tended to show that he did not use strongly one particle care the enrollment of this tabled prevent I think the verdict of jury judgment stand, Court below ought verdict was justified by evidence, and the to the law. judgment according T J.: concur in the dissenting opinion. Clark:,
STATE v. GROVES. Indictment Trial—Evidence—Charge Judge for Murder— —- Facts— n Waiver. Array of The, (Section 1. Inasmuch Oocle)requires 413 of that the trial Judge plain “shall state and correct manner the given explain case and thereon,” declare and the law arising charge jury, murder, the trial of an indictment for where the evi- guilt dence of conflicting, only is insufficient which defines the degrees different of murder and array contains no of the facts or in- applicable struction as to the law to such facts as the may find to be true from the evidence. capital defendant on trial pleads Where for a offence guilty,” “not his that,the consent Judge need not read over his notes of right is not a waiver of applied to have the law to the facts in requires his case as the law shall be done. INDICTMENTfor murder, tried before Adams, J., and a at Term, March 1897, of Wake Superior Court. The