{ "id": 8650388, "name": "STATE v. ELI WARD", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ward", "decision_date": "1889-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "419", "last_page": "423", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "103 N.C. 419" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "93 N. C., 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275013 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/93/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N. C., 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683444 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/82/0623-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 432, "char_count": 8011, "ocr_confidence": 0.522, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0602329676321451e-07, "percentile": 0.556896367317168 }, "sha256": "8f375e1ec6d8bb8e17ede44078a1a32c0d47da8e167bf738662073f4e5685225", "simhash": "1:55179a51b2b848b8", "word_count": 1412 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:40:09.785450+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. ELI WARD." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Davis, J.\n(after stating the facts). The evidence sent up-with the record can leave no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the prisoner is the person who entered the house of W. H. Farmer on the night of January 11, and it tends strongly to show both the intent to murder and to steai, and there are not conflicting intents, and either was sufficient.\nThe first and fourth exceptions may be considered together,, as the admissibility of testimony excepted to in each rests upon the same principle, namely, that each tends to fix the prisoner with a knowledge of the location, condition and circumstances of W. H. Farmer.\nIn State v. Howard, 82 N. C., 623, the defendant was indicted for murder. The deceased was robbed on the night of the homicide, and it -was offered in evidence that, twelve months before the homicide, the prisoner said to the witness, \u201c Don\u2019t you reckon that if any one was to run in on old man Babel Autrey (the deceased) he could get a handful of money ? \u201d The Court said: \u201c The evidence of this conversation is clearly admissible, if for no other purpose, that it tended to affect the prisoner with a knowledge of the reputation that the deceased had money in his house\u201d \u2014 it was in proof that he had that reputation.\nWe do not approve of the form in which the objection is taken to the testimony of the witness Bishop. It is \u201c to all the testimony \u201d of the witness, and seems to have been taken after it was all in, and the whole of it as sent up with the record in useless detail,' though some of it was useless as harmless, but it was not incompetent.\nThe second exception was to the admission of the statements made by Lewis Jordan to D. A. Jordan for the purpose of corroboration. It is well settled, at least in this State, that it is competent to support the testimony of an impeached witness by showing previous statements made by him consistent with those testified to on the trial. State v. Whitfield, 92 N. C , 831, and cases cited.\nThe third exception is to the refusal to admit the declarations of the prisoner, made at a time different from those called out by the State. In State v. McNair, 93 N. C., 628, the Chief Justice said : \u201c It is settled by repeated adjudications, that declarations of a prisoner, made after the criminal act has been committed, in excuse or explanation, at his own instance, will not be received, and they are competent only when they accompany and constitute part of the res gestee.\u201d' This case and the authorities there cited conclusively dispose of the defendant\u2019s third exception adversely to him.\nNo error. Affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Davis, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General, Messrs. R. B. Peebles and W. C. Bowen, for the State.", "No counsel for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. ELI WARD.\nBurglary \u2014 Evidence, Previous Statements of Witness; Declarations of Prisoner in His Own Favor.\n1. Upon an indictment for burglary it is competent for the State to show acts and conversations of the defendant which tend to fix him with a knowledge of the location of the premises, and the condition and circumstances of the prosecutor.\n2. A\u00f1 impeached witness may be supported by showing previous consistent statements made by him.\n3. Declarations of a prisoner, made after the crime was committed, in , excuse or explanation of his acts, will not be received in evidence. Such declarations are competent only when they constitute part of the res gestee.\nINDICTMENT for burglary, tried before MacRae, J., at January Term, 1889, of the Superior Court of NorthamptoN County.\nThe indictment contains two counts \u2014 the first charging the burglarious entering, with intent to kill and murder, and the second with intent to steal.\nIt was in evidence that, on the night of the 11th of January, 1889, the dwelling-house of W. H. Parmer was entered about midnight, by breaking through the window, and a most violent assault made upon the said Parmer, the burglar using a razor; and after a desperate struggle, in which the said Parmer was cut in sever\u00e1l places with the razor, the burglar made his escape, having been first severely wounded by Parmer, who had wrested the razor from him and inflicted the wound therewith.\nThere was much evidence tending, overwhelmingly, -to identify the prisoner as the burglar.\nThe witness W. H. Parmer, whose testimony is sent up \u2022 with the record, details with minuteness, and at much length, the occurrence, and incidents connected therewith, in which, among other things, he said that he did not recognize the person who broke into his house, but knew that he was a colored man from his hair, and that a hat was left in the room by the burglar, which was afterwards identified as the prisoner\u2019s; that the prisoner had been at his house about 10 o\u2019clock on the night of the burglary to see him, as prisoner said, about some cotton which he had promised to deliver, but had failed to do so; \u201cthat he (the prisoner) did not come but once that night; that I (he) recognized him. He had been there four or five times at night inside of two wopks, and once in the day he came to the store.\u201d\nThe prisoner objected to the testimony \u201cthat the prisoner had been there previous to the night of the alleged burglary.\u201d\nObjection overruled. Prisoner excepted. This constitutes the first exception.\nOne Lewis Jordan, a witness for the State, testified that he saw the prisoner the day after the burglary, and details what occurred, and, among other things, that the prisoner said one Farmer made him mad over a bale of cotton, and that \u201che broke in on him to kill him,\u201d and that he (prisoner) \u201cgot cut mighty bad.\u201d\nThe cross-examination of this witness tended to impeach him, and one D. A. Jordan was introduced and permitted to state what Lewis Jordan had told him, and that it was \u201c almost identically the same as testified on the. trial.\u201d This testimony was admitted, after objection, in corroboration of Lewis Jordan. This constitutes the defendant\u2019s second \u25a0exception.\nThe counsel for the prisoner \u201cproposed to ask this witness what statement the prisoner made before the Magistrate.\u201d Objected to by the State, as (made) at a different time from any statement brought out by the State. Objection sustained and prisoner excepted. This constitutes the third \u25a0exception.\nOne Daniel Bishop, a witness for the State, testified that Mr. Farmer was married in December, and that when he went off to get married, witness stayed in his house; that \u201cwhile Farmer was absent, Eli came the night Farmer went away, to see Farmer; it was about 9 p. m. when he came * * * He knocked at the door and said, \u2018Is Mr. Farmer in?\u2019 I said\u2018No; who is that?\u2019 He said, \u2018It is Eli Ward.\u2019 Said he wanted to see Mr. Farmer. Asked if he could come in. Witness said, \u2018 O yes.\u2019 tie came, sat down, and asked witness if he was attending to Mr. Farmer\u2019s house till he came. Was told that witness was. Prisoner asked witness if he was not \u2018 afraid to stay there of nights ;\u2019 was answered \u25a0\u2018No.\u2019 He said,\u2018I suppose you have plenty of weapons to keep you from being afraid?\u2019 Witness said, \u2018Yes, plenty- \u2014 \u25a0 a double-barreled gun, two pistols and two black-jacks.\u201d He \u2022asked witness, \u2018 Don\u2019t you want a drink?\u2019 We took a drink. He got sleepy \u2014 got to nodding. I said, \u2018 Eli, the clock struck 11.\u2019 He said, all right; said tell Mr. Farmer'he was coming again to-morrow night. I said he wouldn\u2019t, be there tomorrow night. He said he and Mr. Farmer had right smart dealings together \u2014 that Mr. Farmer had plenty of money there in the safe. I told him I reckoned he had right smart of paper, but not much money. He said he had right much dealings with Mr. Farmer. He had shown him in there,, and he knew there was money in there. He told me to tell Farmer that he was coming back to see him. He asked me did I have my gun loaded. I told him yes; I showed him the gun and pistols. They were not really loaded.\u201d Objection by the prisoner to all of the testimony of Daniel Bishop. Objection overruled; defendant excepts. This constitutes-the fourth exception.\nThere was a verdict of guilty, judgment, and appeal by defendant.\nAttorney General, Messrs. R. B. Peebles and W. C. Bowen, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0419-01", "first_page_order": 443, "last_page_order": 447 }