{ "id": 8694630, "name": "The State v. Joseph Martin and others", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Martin", "decision_date": "1819-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "533", "last_page": "535", "citations": [ { "type": "nominative", "cite": "3 Mur. 533" }, { "type": "official", "cite": "7 N.C. 533" } ], "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": 286, "char_count": 4804, "ocr_confidence": 0.386, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.417477212180032e-08, "percentile": 0.5163801055582777 }, "sha256": "ce56508bef23b12a5ec916b793cfd1ab2d9c69bd8603e93b4b7a97a202f9b5ae", "simhash": "1:c667e1e4eaadd9f8", "word_count": 860 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:45:47.457789+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The State v. Joseph Martin and others." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tavi.or, Chief-Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe offence charged in the indictment is not a general riot, but a riot which consisted specifically in pulling down, removing, breaking, and destroying a dwelling house. So far it resembles the case of the Queen v. Soley and others, 2 Salk. 595 ; which was an information for a riot for taking from the hinges, the door of a certain house called the Guildhall of the town of Bewdly. In that case, the judgment was arrested, because it did not appear whose house it was ; and calling it a Guildhall did not make it so. In the case before us, the house is laid as the dwelling house of one Lucy Showell, and as in her possession. It appears from the case, that Lucy Showell was, at the time of the riot, the wife of a man who was then out of the state, but who has since returned, though he does not reside with his wife. Now in the case of burglary, it is a well settled rule, that if a person inhabit a dwelling house, as the wife, guest, servant, or part of the family of another, it is in law' the occupation of such other person, and must be so laid in the indictment. And this rule was strongly exemplified in Fane\u2019s case, Kelyng, 43, where it w'as holden, that if the house of a feme, covert, who lives apart from her husband, be broken, though the husband had expressly refused to have any thing to do with the lease, and the landlord made the agreement with the wife alone, yet it must be laid to be the house of the husband. There is no ground whatever on which to infer that the separate property of this house was in the wife, or that in point of law she liad the. exclusive possession of it. For whatever might have been alleged in favor of such a position, had the husband left the state under circumstances indicating an intention of not returning, yet in fact he has returned, and the wife is consequently subject to the disabilities of coverture. As the riot laid in the indictment is not distinguishable from a burglary, so far as it respects the description of the property or possession of the house, and as, according to the case in Salkeld, the proof must establish the allegation, there must be a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tavi.or, Chief-Justice," } ], "attorneys": [], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The State v. Joseph Martin and others.\nFrom Wayne.\nindictment for a riot \u201c in pulling down, breaking', removing and destroy-' \u201c ing the dwelling house of one Lucy Showell, she the said Lucy be- \u201c ing in the peaceable possession thereof.\u201d upon the trial, it appeared in evidence that Lucy Showell was a feme covert, but her husband did not live with her. The Defendants being convicted, the Court awarded a new trial, for\nIn an indictment for a riot in pulling down a dwelling house, as well as in burglary, for breaking and entering' a dwelling home, the indictment must set forth whose house it is. Here it was the dwelling house of the husband, and should have been so charged. If a person inhabit a dwelling house, as the wife, guest, servant, or part of the family of another, it is in law the occupation of such other person, and must be so laid in the indictment.\nThe indictment charged, \u201c that Joseph Martin, Thomas is Durden, Joei Newsom, Isaac. Newsom, together with Si divers other persons to the Jurors unknown, being riot- \u201c ers, routers, and disturbers of the peace of the state, on \u201c the ninth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thou-Si sand eight hundred and seventeen, with force and arms, \u201c that is to say, with sticks, staves, and other offensive \u201c weapons, at the county oi\u2018 Wayne aforesaid, unlawfully, \u201c riotously and routousiy, did assemble and gather toge- \u201c ther to disturb the peace of the state; and being so as- \u201c sembied and gathered together, the, dwelling house of \u00edS one Lucy Showcll, sise the said Lucy being in the peacc-44 able possession thereof, then and there unlawfully, riot-\u00ed\u00a3 ously and routously, did pull down, remove, break and \u201c destroy, and other wrongs to the said Lucy Showell \u201c then and there did, to her great damage, and against the \u201c peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nUpon the trial it appeared in evidence, that Lucy Show-ell was a feme covert j that her husband had gone from the State, leaving her behind, residing in the house $ that since the commission of the acts charged in the indictment, he had returned to the State, but liad not since resided with his wife. The presiding Judge charged the Jury, that evidence of taking down the roof of the house in which j^y sho^-eU resided, against her consent, supported the indictment, and that the Defendants might be convicted, although the indictment did not charge the house to be the dwelling house of the husband. The Defendants were convicted, and a rule for a new trial was obtained, upon the ground of misdirection by the Court. The rule ivas discharged, and the Defendants appealed to this Court." }, "file_name": "0533-01", "first_page_order": 537, "last_page_order": 539 }