{
  "id": 8652353,
  "name": "THE STATE v. JOCK LEGGETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Leggett",
  "decision_date": "1889-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "784",
  "last_page": "786",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 N.C. 784"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3691,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30892747028880835
    },
    "sha256": "8591e3bf02da4f36a8ef28c22fd726fba03a199da776dd6baa195f1fc238b94a",
    "simhash": "1:05c7f635c52f6509",
    "word_count": 648
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:43.175763+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. JOCK LEGGETT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Merrimon, C. J.:\nThe prosecutor was no more than insolent to the defendant; he did not strike, nor offer to strike-him; nor does it appear-that he had any weapon of offence of any kind, nor was there any display of force, nor any direct threat. Pie refused, when commanded, to go out of the defendant\u2019s house. The latter had the right to put him out, after he so refused to go, and to use reasonable., necessary force for that purpose, if need be, but not unnecessary or excessive force.\nAs the prosecutor offered no violence \u2014 had made no-assault \u2014 had displayed no arms or weapon of any kind. after the defendant got his gun, he should not have stricken him at once \u2014 surely he should have said to him before striking, \u201c Go out, else, as you see, I am prepared, and will use force.\u201d This he might safely have done, and the presence of the gun in the defendant\u2019s hands might \u2014 probably would \u2014 have driven him out without the blow. This he did not do. He at once struck him with the gun in a spirit of vengeance, not simply to get him out. So far as appears, it was not necessary to strike the blow without first commanding him to go out. It might have been otherwise, if the prosecutor had been armed, or violently moving upon or assaulting the defendant. The law does not allow\u2019 unnecessary violence.\nThe instruction of the Court to the jury omplained of, was therefore correct. There is no error and the judgment must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Merrimon, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney Geneial and Mr. Jno. Devereux, Jr., for the- \u2022 State.",
      "Mr. W. F. French, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. JOCK LEGGETT.\nAssault \u2014 Evidence.\nWhere the prosecutor, a dangerous and quarrelsome man, and the defendant went into the house of the latter to make a settlement, and an altercation arising, the defendant ordered the prosecutor to leave, which he refused to do, whereupon the defendant went to another room, got his gun, and immediately on his return struck prosecutor with it, without attempting to use milder means to expel him, and it did not appear that the prosecutor was armed, or was attempting any violence : Held, to constitute an assault.\nCRIMINAL action, tried in the Superior Court of Robeson County, at January Term, 1889, Merrimon, J., presiding.\nThe defendant testified in his own behalf, that the prosecutor came to his stable and demanded a settlement; that at his suggestion they went into the defendant\u2019s house, but failed to settle; defendant told him to go out of the house; the prosecutor replied, that he would go when he got ready, saying, \u201cPut me out if you are man enough to do it\u201d; the defendant went and got his gun, came back, and at once, without saying any thing, struck the prosecutor with it; the defendant had heard from his \u201c hands,\u201d that the prosecutor bad said theretofore, that if he did not settle with him he would have defendant\u2019s blood ; that the latter knew the-prosecutor to be a desperate, dangerous, cparrelsome character, and superior to him in physical strength; that after he struck the prosecutor with the gun, his wife told the prosecutor to go away, and he went. There was no evidence to show that the prosecutor had a weapon of any kind, or1 that he offered violence to the. defendant otherwise than above stated. Nor was there evidence that the defendant attempted to get the prosecutor away otherwise than by ordering him out of his house, and upon his not going, getting his gun and striking him with it; he did not use milder means to get him out. The Court was of opinion that, if' the jury believed the defendant\u2019s own statement, they should find him guilty, and so instructed them. The defendant excepted.\nThere was a verdict and judgment against him, and he-appealed.\nThe Attorney Geneial and Mr. Jno. Devereux, Jr., for the- \u2022 State.\nMr. W. F. French, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0784-01",
  "first_page_order": 816,
  "last_page_order": 818
}