ASSAULT, tried before Watts, J., at Spring Term 1870, of HALIFAX Court.
The jury found, by a special verdict, that on the 7th day of June 1869, at the
house of the defendant, etc., the latter and his wife had some words and he
threatened to leave her; after some very improper language by him, she started
off, when he caught her by the left arm, and said he would kill her, and drew
his knife and struck at her with it, but did not strike her; that he drew back
as if to strike again, and his arm was caught by a bystander, whereupon the
wife got away and ran about fifteen steps; that the defendant did not pursue
her, but told her not to return, if she did he would kill her; that he did not
strike her, or inflict any personal injury, and that he was a man of violent
character, etc., etc.
His Honor thereupon being of opinion that the defendant was not guilty, there
was a Verdict and Judgment accordingly; and the Solicitor for the State
appealed.
HEADNOTES:
Where, upon some words between husband and wife he threatened to
leave her, and used to her very improper language, when she started to go off, and
he
caught her by the left
arm, and said he would kill her,
drawing his
knife with the other hand; then, holding her, struck at her with the
knife, but did not strike her, and again
drawing back as if to strike, his
arm was
caught by a
bystander; but after all, no injury or
blow was
inflicted:
Held, to have been a case in which the Courts will
interfere, and that the husband was guilty of assault.
COUNSEL:
Attorney-General for the State.
R. B. Peebles and Rogers & Batchelor contra.
READE, J.: The facts present a case of savage and dangerous
outrage, not to be tolerated in a country of laws
and Christianity.
We rigidly adhere to the doctrine, in
State v. Rhodes, 61 N.C. 453, and precedent cases in our reports, that the Courts will not invade the
domestic forum, to take cognizance of trifling cases of
violence in family government; but there is no relation which can shield a party who is
guilty of malicious
outrage or dangerous
violence committed or threatened. In
State v. Rhodes, the jury had been charged that
"the husband had the right to whip his wife with a
switch no larger than his
thumb." In combatting that error, the Court said:
"A light
blow, or many light
blows with a stick larger than the
thumb, might produce no injury; but a
switch half the size might be so used as to produce death. The
standard is the
effect produced, and not the manner of producing it, or the instrument used." Those words were used as applicable to the facts in that case. But on the
argument at the bar in this case, they were perverted to mean that in any case,
no matter what weapon was used or from what motive or intent, unless permanent
injury were
inflicted, the Court would not
interfere therefore,
here, although death was threatened and a deadly
knife used, yet as it was averted by a
bystander, the Court will not
interfere. We repudiate any such construction of the
State v. Rhodes.
Upon the special verdict there ought to have been judgment against the
defendant.
Let this be certified, etc. There is error.
Per curiam.
Error.