{ "id": 8651674, "name": "THE STATE v. R. P. ROSEMAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Roseman", "decision_date": "1891-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "765", "last_page": "767", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "108 N.C. 765" } ], "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": "94 N. C., 902", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652395 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "904" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0902-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N. C., 786", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652369 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0786-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 N. C., 673", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275992 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "740" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/98/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 N. C., 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8697921 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/91/0617-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N. C., 587", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12117547 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/89/0587-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N. C., 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278829 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/85/0553-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 351, "char_count": 5108, "ocr_confidence": 0.529, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.330080111831542e-07, "percentile": 0.7909725624930256 }, "sha256": "e8bbfa7de07c8cd73a6d9fd6fe3306fa340dbdfa7a51c6150b1c1b230b4c727a", "simhash": "1:dee5d9c8462d2404", "word_count": 900 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:38:29.877932+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE STATE v. R. P. ROSEMAN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MjcrkimoN, C. J.:\nClearly the Court had jurisdiction. The indictment charges an assault with a deadly weapon, describing it, and that serious injury was done. The evidence certainly tended to prove that the assault was made with a deadly weapon, and that serious damage was done, but if it had turned out that the evidence only proved a simple assault, the Superior Court would, nevertheless, have jurisdiction, might receive a verdict of \u201cguilty,\u201d and proceed to judgment, as it did do. This is so, because that Court has general jurisdiction of assaults, assaults and batteries, and affrays, and, having gained jurisdiction in a particular case, it will continue to hold and exercise the same until it shall be disposed of in the course of procedure. This is settled. The Code, \u00a7 892; State v. Reaves, 85 N. C., 553; State v. Ray, 89 N. C., 587; State v. Huntley, 91 N. C., 617; State v. Shelly, 98 N. C., 673; State v. Earnest, id., 740; State v. Phillips, 104 N. C., 786.\nAnd so, also, if a simple ass\u00e1ult had been charged, this would have apparently given the Superior Court jurisdiction, 'and the burden would have been on the defendant to show that twelve months (Acts 1889, ch. 504) had not elapsed since the offence was committed, and next before the Superior Court took- jurisdiction. State v. Earnest, supra, and the cases there cited. 1\nIt must be conceded that the prosecutrix behaved badly, and greatly provoked and annoyed the defendant and distressed his sick wife; but she was in prison, and helpless.. While the jailer (the defendant) had the right to subdue her outbreak and keep her in subordination by reasonable and proper means, he liad not the shadow of right to gratify his feelings of revenge or to inflict upon her such a cruel and terrible beating with a horse-whip. We cannot hesitate to say that the injury inflicted was serious, and that the fine imposed was clearly within the discretion of the Court. State v. Miller, 94 N. C., 902, 904.\n\u25a0Affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MjcrkimoN, C. J.:" } ], "attorneys": [ "The Attorney General, for the State.", "Mr. John W Mauney, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE STATE v. R. P. ROSEMAN.\nAssault and Battery \u2014 Deadly Weapon\u2014 Serious Injury\u2014 Jurisdiction \u2014 Punishment.\nAn indictment charged that the defendant made an assault upon the prosecutrix with a \u201c deadly weapon, to-wit, a club,\u201d etc. On the trial it appeared that the defendant was the keeper of a jail and resided therein with his family; that his wife was seriously ill; that the prosecutrix was imprisoned in the jail and was conducting herself in a loud, boisterous and disorderly manner, and refused to desist when ordered by the defendant; that thereupon he took her to another apartment and gave her a severe whipping with a buggy whip, cutting the flesh on her back and arms. The defendant was convicted and fined one hundred dollars : Held, (1) the Superior Court had jurisdiction ; (2) the punishment was within the discretion of tl e Court below, and would not be reviewed by the Supreme Court.\nINDICTMENT, tried at Spring Term, 1891, of Rowan Superior Court, Bynum, J., presiding.\nThe indictment charges that the defendant made an assault upon the prosecutrix \u201c with a certain deadly weapon, to-wit, a club of the length of three feet and one inch in diameter,\u201d etc. He pleaded not guilty. On the trial it appeared that the prosecutrix tras confined in the common jail of Rowan County and the defendant was the keeper of the jail; that on one night she sang and made much disagreeable noise to the discomfort of the defendant\u2019s wife, -who was lying in a room of the first story of the jail and very ill; that the prosecutrix refused to obey the jailor\u2019s command to cease making noise, etc. Whereupon, he ..carried her down (she w'as confined on the third floor) to the second floor and whipped her; that witness did not see him whipping her, as.he (witness) was on the third-floor, but heard-the licks and heard the woman hollowing; that he hit her fifteen or twenty licks, some of the prisoners said twenty-eight; that he then brought her back up stairs; her arms and back were cut and bleeding; that some of the prisoners told him he ought not to have whipped that woman that way, and that defendant said he had whipped her with a buggy whip, 'etc.\nThe prosecutrix testified, among other things, that the defendant carried her down to the second floor, got a whip and whipped her, that she did not know how many licks he gave her \u2014 that she had on nothing but her chemise \u2014 her arms and neck were bare; that he cut the blood out of her arms and back; that it did not disable her; that the places healed up in a week or two; that the defendant did not take the shackles off her when he whipped her, etc. There was evidence tending to show that the prosecutrix was a low, bad woman, etc., that the defendant had directed her to hush and she would not, etc.; that his wife was very ill, etc.\nThere was a verdict of \u201cguilty\u201d and judgment thereupon that the defendant pay a fine of one hundred dollars, from which he appealed to this Court, assigning as error, first, that the Court had not jurisdiction, and secondly, that the fine was excessive.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nMr. John W Mauney, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0765-01", "first_page_order": 799, "last_page_order": 801 }