{
  "id": 8661408,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1901-02-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "573",
  "last_page": "575",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 573"
    }
  ],
  "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": "121 N. C., 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653666
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0604-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 5008,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.377,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.490603497549194e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4862279615529708
    },
    "sha256": "98f43eff14e4614ffa4145c78783944159468788b73af96980809e468339f791",
    "simhash": "1:daf34a517ff0d843",
    "word_count": 878
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WILLIAMS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clare, J.\nThe multiplication of law reports makes it desirable that the courts should refrain from filing opinions which state no new points or new application of settled principles. Many courts now act upon that principle, and the Supreme Court of Tennessee (land possibly others) have formulated a. rule of court to that effect. For the same reason when an opinion is filed it is not necessary to do more than decide, without discussing in the opinion, the exceptions which present only matters which have been heretofore well settled.\nThis is an indictment under The Code, sec. 1103, for carnal knowledge of a married woman by fraud in personating her husband. After a careful examination of each and every exception we find no error. We will consider the only exception which can possibly present a hitherto undecided aspect. The prayer (-the refusal of which is set out as exception 13), that \u201cupon all the evidence!, if believed, the defendant could not be convicted of fraudulently personating the husband under the act upon which the indictment was drawn,\u201d could not be sustained unless tire act required that there should be fraudulent representations by words. In a transaction of this nature, that would hardly he possible. The \u201cfraudulent personation\u201d must also necessarily be done by \u201c'acts and- conduct\u201d of defendant. This indeed is recognized by defendant\u2019s tenth prayer for instruction. If the prosecu-trix\u2019s evidence is believed, there was snch evidence sufficient to go to the jury. The wife was visiting her mother, who was ill; the defendant was there that evening and saw her. She was expecting her husband that night. .During the night the defendant entered the room -where prosecutrix was sleeping oar a pallet, laid down and squeezed her hand and pnlled her towards him; she asked, \u201cWho is that?\u201d Not distinguishing any answer, she said in a whisper, \u201cWhen did you come?\u201d supposing he was her husband. The defendant replied in a whisper, \u201cA little while ago,\u201d so- low that she did not suspect that it was not her husband\u2019s voice. He continued to- pull her hard and she got over nearer to- him, so that be accomplished his purpose; the prosecutrix was much worn o-ut with nursing and -want, of sleep-; her grandmother was at the other edge of the pullet.\nWithout going into further details, it was evident to- the jury, if the jury belie-ved this testimony, that the defendant laid down in the night time by a sleeping woman who could not see him when she awoke, and to whom he made known that he sought her embrace by squeezing her- hand and pulling her to him, and that when she asked \u201cWhen did yon come ?\u201d he knew that she thought he was her husband wbom she was expecting, -and not bimself whom she had already seen and whose time of arrival was already known to- her. His reply, \u201cA little while ago,\u201d spoken in a whis-per so low as to disguise his voice, could hlave been intended only to- prolong the impression that it was her husband, and to deceive her into yielding her body to his embraces\u00bb; certainly it was sufficient evidence, even without the further evidence of his confession that the prosecutrix was fooled and thought he wfas- her husband, to submit to 'the jury. lie knew he was no-t the woman\u2019s husband; he knew she thought he was; he so acted as to keep up the delusion until he accomplished his purpose. It is not essential whether he went to the room for that purpose or not, nor whether he origin-ally created the delusion or not. Even if he laid down on the pallet by mistake and finding a womian there, intended by squeezing and pulling her hand to solicit her consent to illicit intercourse, o-r if according to his own evidence she threw her arm and. leg over him and thus aroused his passions, still when he found by her whispered query, \u201cWhen did you come ?\u201d that he was mistaken for her husband, and continued the delusion by speaking so as to disguise his voice and thus obtained the gratification of his passions, he knew that he 'Was obtaining his end by fraud in personating her husband. \u201cThe voice was the voice of Jacob, but -the hand was the hand of Esau,\u201d is the story of an ever-memorable fraud, but here neither hand nor voice created a suspicion in the mind of the betrayed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clare, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-Gen erial, and Ghas. F. Warren, and W. B. Rodman, for the State.",
      "Small & McLean, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAMS.\n(Filed February 26, 1901.)\n1. RAPE \u2014 Fraud\u2014Personating Husband \u2014 The Code, See. 1103.\nA person who, by his acts or conduct, induces a woman to believe he is her husband and has intercourse with her, is guilty of a felony. State v. Matthews, 121 N. C., 604.\n2. EVIDENCE \u2014 Sufficiency\u2014Rape\u2014The Gode, Sec. 1103.\nThe facts in this case held sufficient to submit to .iury as to guilt of defendant.\nThis was an indictment against C. M. Williams, beard by Judge T. A. McNeill and a jury, at November Term, 1900, of BeaufoRt Comity Superior Court. From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.\nRobert D. Gilmer, Attorney-Gen erial, and Ghas. F. Warren, and W. B. Rodman, for the State.\nSmall & McLean, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0573-01",
  "first_page_order": 609,
  "last_page_order": 611
}