Case ID: scl_42/html/0072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WaRdlaw, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State vs. B. Shooter and Others.
    Indictment for a conspiracy to pervert legal process to tlie unlawful purpose of extorting a deed from J. M., charging that defendants executed their purpose by the concerted means. Verdict — guilty, which the Court of Appeals refused to disturb.
    The deed, which was extorted, was a conveyance of land from J. M. to L. Q., one of -the defendants. Evidence, in behalf of defendants, to show that the paper title to the land was already in L. G., was excluded on circuit, and on appeal held, that, under the circumstances, .it was properly excluded.
    Indictment for a conspiracy to extort a deed by means of a peace warrant:— Held, that the offence of conspiracy might be made out, although the affidavit to obtain the peace warrant was true.
    The conspiracy may be criminal, although the purpose be merely to get possession of land by means of an extorted deed in favour of the legal owner.
    BEFO EE WITHEBS, J., AT MABION, FALL TERM, 1854.
    The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
    £ ‘ The defendants were indicted for a conspiracy; Berry Shooter was described as a constable, and Benjamin Shooter as a magistrate, and it was imputed to them, together with the other defendants, William Goodyear and Lovit Goodyear, that they intended, unlawfully, deceitfully, and fraudulently, to extort, &c., from one John D. Morris a deed of conveyance to the defendant, Lovit Goodyear, for a certain tract of land. The indictment then charged that the defendants “ did, corruptly and unlawfully, conspire together to extort, obtain, and procure of and from the said John D. Morris, the said deed of conveyance, for the use and benefit of the said Lovit Goodyear, and, in order to extort, obtain, and procure the same, did then and there corruptly and unlawfully conspire, under color and pretence of legal process, to arrest and imprison the said John D, Morris and Esther Morris, his wife: and that the said Benjamin Shooter, so being a magistrate as aforesaid, in furtherance of their said conspiracy, afterwards, to wit: on the same day and year aforesaid, upon the oath of the said Lovit Goodyear, did issue a peace warrant against the said John D. Morris, and Esther Morris, his wife, and then and there delivered the said warrant to the said Berry Shooter, so being a constable as aforesaid; and the said William Goodyear, in furtherance of their said conspiracy, did thén and there propose to compromise and suppress the said warrant, and to prevent further proceedings being taken thereon against the said John D. Morris and Esther Morris, his wife, if he, the said John D. Morris, would execute the said deed of conveyance to the said Lovit Goodyear for the said tract of land; and that the said Benjamin Shooter, so being a magistrate as aforesaid, the said Berry Shooter so being a constable as aforesaid, the said Lovit Goodyear and the said William Goodyear, in pursuance of their said conspiracy^ afterwards, to wit: on the same day and year aforesaid with force and arms, at Marion Court House aforesaid, in the district and State aforesaid, unlawfully, fraudulently, deceitfully, and corruptly, did extort, obtain, and procure of and from the said John D. Morris, so being in custody as aforesaid, the said deed of conveyance for the tract of land aforesaid, under color of legal process, and also under color and pre-tence of compromising and suppressing the said warrant, and preventing any further proceedings being taken thereon against the said John D. Morris and Esther Morris, his wife.”
    “ The prosecution had produced the testimony of John D. Morris and his wife, as to the circumstances of the whole transaction, the only portion of which that related to the title to land was to the effect, that he (Morris) had, a few days anterior, come to the house, his wife in company, where his father had been residing, for the purpose of killing and curing hogs for his father; that on the morning of the day of arrest Lovit Goodyear had demanded possession of the land, and that he said to Goodyear he could not give up the place then — (as will appear more at large in the notes of testimony.)
    “ The defendants proposed to adduce the title of Lovit Goodyear, (there being no evidence that Morris, the prosecutor, claimed any title,) and I rejected the evidence, on motion of the Solicitor, since I could not discern how the issue involved the title, or how the State, upon the issue joined, could conduct a contest upon that question, it appearing to me, that if the title of Lovit Goodyear were ever so clear, the issue still remained — made by the indictment. Still the defendants bad the benefit of testimony, to the effect that Shooter, the magistrate, affirmed that a deed from Morris was of no use, for Goodyear’s title to the land was good enough; and also, that Morris, on the morning after he executed the deed, said he wished Goodyear well of the land, for he knew he had paid well for it. So much for the first ground of appeal.
    “No evidence whatever had been adduced to show that Lovit Goodyear had any ground to warrant him in causing Morris and his wife to be arrested and bound over to keep the peace; on the contrary, Morris swore he made no threats, and the woman declared that she had never seen Goodyear but once before, and knew nothing about him. It had also appeared that Shooter, the magistrate, though ruled at the instance of the Solicitor, had not returned the affidavit of Lovit Goodyear and the warrant issued thereon, nor did he produce them at the trial. These circumstances were matters of pointed observation to the jury, on the part of the State, and I submitted them also to the consideration of the jury, and it being urged for the defence that a verdict of guilty pre-supposed perjury in Goodyear, I remarked that this was not necessarily so, that even if Goodyear had shown ground to authorize him to make an affidavit, yet if there was a conspiracy to use such a process as he had caused to be issued, not for the purpose of procuring articles of the peace, but to accomplish the purpose charged in the indictment, Lovit Goodyear might, nevertheless, be guilty; at the same time I took care to say to the jury, that a false affidavit by Goodyear would not make the magistrate and constable liable to any charge, unless they were implicated with Goodyear, by confederation, in the ulterior design traceable to him.
    “ As to the third ground, I did say to the jury that a conspiracy to use a peace warrant for the purpose of driving a party to make a deed, so as to extort by such means from him an abandonment of possession of land, would be the offence of conspiracy.
    “As to the fourth ground, I have no other means of responding to it than by a report of the entire evidence, which is herewith submitted, in the form of notes taken at the trial.
    “ The jury rendered a verdict of guilty.”
    The testimony of John D. Morris and Esther, his wife, upon which the case wa,s principally decided, is as follows:
    
      “John D. Morris: I know defendant; was arrested on a peace-warrant on Saturday, sunset, 1st of January, 1853, by Berry Shooter, a constable, on a warrant issued by Benjamin Shooter, a magistrate; Lovit Goodyear made the affidavit; my wife was also arrested at a place where my father lived.— On the morning of that day, Lovit Goodyear came and demanded possession of t.he place, saying it was his time; he had bought the place from Sogers, I think, to whom my brother Solomon had sold it; I had come up there with my wife to kill hogs for my father ; I lived in Horry ; I said I could not give up the place then; ho said “It’s law you want, and I’ll give give you a belly full of law,” and went off. After I began salting, about sunset, I heard a hail at the Gap, and went and found Berry Shooter, Christopher Huggins being with him, who said he had a precept; I asked what; he said a peace warrant for me and my wife; I asked him who had taken it; he said Lovit Goodyear ; asked if I would give up; I said I did not think it was worth while, it was night, and I was busy and I didn’t know it was necessary to give up to that warrant; he said his father was at William Goodyear’s, (not a mile off,) and I had as well go; he would give me a chance, very like, to get security ; I said I was always willing to comply with the laws "of the country, and asked him to read the warrant, and I said I would go and try to give security without giving any further trouble; My wife signified she would not go; said it was cold and night; I persuaded her to go, and we went; she had a child one year and eight or ten days old with her; I went off in my shirt sleeves; it was cold, but I expected to go no further than William Goodyear’s, and would get security. We went to William Goodyear’s, Jr., and met Squire Benjamin Shooter; he said “ Well, Morris, it appears you are interested here in taking possession of Love Goodyear’s land.” I said I had gone there to kill hogs for my father. He asked if that was my wife ; I said it was. He said “ If I was you I should hate to have her carried and put in jail;” I said I was not going to do so, and if he did or the rest of them send her to jail, I could not help it; he said she was a very fine little woman, and he would hate to have her put in jail; he said, “ Morris, I like you very well, regard you as a nice little man, let’s make it up — drop it;” that he had three or four more warrants against me; that I had better give up my claim to that land, for the warrant would put us in jail, and if I gave security they would have me put in jail with the others. I said I could not; did not know how to make up a peace warrant without giving security. He said I had not security there, and he would have me carried out to his office, and make a mittimus to carry me, wife and child, to jail, without I would make it up and quit Lovit Goodyear’s land. I said I had not security there, but if he would let me go off and get security I would leave my wife there till I did it; I knew I could give good security. He said it was out of his power to do anything with it but to carry me to his office and commit me to jail, for he could not give me the opportunity, for young William Goodyear was there, and was going to have it carried on. William Goodyear, Jr., said he was not going to give any limited time to go off and give security, (William Jr. was Lovit’s son.)— Benjamin Shooter then said he must go on to his office. I said I was without my coat, and ashed Berry to go back so I could get my clothes, and I would go on with him — that I would pay him what it was worth to go back and let me get things for my child and wife; he said he was tired, and would not go back any more. Benjamin Shooter said he must go home, and “I can’t make it up with you; you have become the damndest fool I ever saw, and it is the damndest rascally trick I ever knew a man to do for going and taking possession of Love Goodyear’s land.” Wo then started to his office. Benjamin Shooter asked young William Goodyear to go with us. We went in a direct course to his office till we came to Allen’s bridge, and there got in company with John W. Moody, Pinckney Shooter, and one Walls. Jno. W. Moody said he was there to keep Benjamin Shooter from going over, for one arch of the bridge fell that day, and said “ Morris, what is the muss with you and your wife and child here?” I said I was arrested with a peace warrant, and asked him if he would stand my security until Monday morning; that I would be certain to meet him here at the Court-house. He said he would and held up his hand and said he would stand our security till Monday morning at the Court-house. Benjamin Shooter, with an oath, said he would not take him. Moody said “ Stop, let me go and see a little something about it.” He and William Goodyear went and talked together a little while, and he caine back and said, “lam a particular friend of yours ; let’s make it up.” I told him I could not make it up without giving security, and they would not let me go off and get it; he said he would give me $10 and clear me of all those warrants, if I would sign a quit-claim deed to that land; I told him I would not at that time. Berry Shooter said “I will put in some, and we will give you $15.” Benjamin Shooter said he would see it paid, and clear me of all these other warrants and that one, if I would give a quit-claim deed to that piece of land; he said “ We can’t do nothing with him; I know where I can go and stay all night, and I am going,” and went back to old William Goodyear’s. Berry Shooter pressed John W. Moody to go back with us; Jno. W. Moody kept pressing me to make it up, and at last I told him I would make it up and give a quitclaim deed for $25; he said they could not give so much, but would give $15; we went to old Billy Groodyear’s, and found Benjamin Shooter there, William Goodyear, Sr., John Freeman', Josiah Davis, and Sally Price; Jno. W. Moody, Berry and Benjamin Shooter again insisted I should make it up, and they would clear me of all these warrants'and give me $15 if I would make a quit-claim title to the land; I at last told them that from the circumstances of my family, child and wife, I would give them a quit-claim; Moody wrote the deed; I signed it. Josiah Davis was one of the witnesses ; Benjamin Shooter asked me to deliver the deed; I asked to read it; he said I had written it right; you need not read it, deliver it to young Bill Goodyear; I began to read, and went so far as “ Know all men by these presents,” when young Wm. G. snatched it out of my hands, and I threw out my hands and said “ Go with it;” I was then released and my wife. (Paper produced;, conveyance from Jno. Morris to Lovit Goodyear, for $15 consideration ; warranty ; witnessed by John W. Moody and Josiah Davis; dated 1st January, 1858.) I did hot think of reading the deed before signing, but began to read it before I delivered it, when it was snatched; it was past midnight when the deed was signed.
    
      Cross-Uxamined. — I went to the place on Thursday before Saturday, 1st January; carried nothing but our clothes; walked there; we stayed partly in house my father stayed in —one night in a house my brother stayed in; I carried to Solomon’s a bed of my father’s house; I did not go to stay the year, and left on Sunday, morning. I did not go to take possession; did tell Patrick Lewis I bad a right to take possession of that land if my father was willing; this was some time before I went, as stated ; I told Lovit Goodyear on Saturday morning that I had not possession, and could not give it now ; I put my father’s bedding in another house, and fastened as I found it; I opened it by the key-hole with a knife ; it was the house Solomon lived in. Goodyear said he had a right to the possession; Goodyear had possession of a mill on the land; it was between fifty and one hundred yards distant from the house. Bill Goodyear, Wm. Ford, jr., and Elias Goodyear, were with Lovit when he came and demanded possession; don’t know I said more to him than I have stated on Saturday morning.— Berry Shooter, on starting, did say I had better take my coat, perhaps; I replied I would see the magistrate, and thought I could get security ; he refused to let me go and get security 1 did not, as I recollect, propose that my wife should go on, and Berry would go with me to fetch sureties to the house. Berry Shooter was wet; they were getting timber somewhere there on Pee Dee; don’t think Berry S. offered to go with me to get security ; I did not refuse to go with him to hunt security; Christopher Huggins was with Berry S. and me most of the time; Berry said he was willing for me to go and get security, if Benjamin S. was; the last did not offer to take my wife back, and advise me to go for security; some of the party offered my wife a chance to ride; think Wm. Goodyear offered his coat to be put round the child; Jno. Moody was on the other side of the bridge; a light was soon brought; I was told the bridge had fallen that day; Moody said it was risking life to go over; Huggins and Moody present when Berry Shooter offered to put up some of the $15 — and near when magistrate said he would see it paid, and destroy the warrants. Think . Josiah Davis, old Mrs. Goodyear and Sally Price, were up when we got to old Goodyear’s; we got supper; Benjamin Shooter was there; think rather he was sitting in the hall by the fire; he spoke of a guard that night if I did not make it up ; I think
    
      he told Moody to draw the deed; don’t remember he declined to do it himself. I made ,no threats against Lovit Goodyear, or any other man.
    
      Mrs. JSsther Morris: I am wife to Jno. D. Morris; 1st January, ’53, we were at his father’s. Perry Shooter and Christopher Pluggins came and arrested me, and carried me to young Wm. Goodyear’s; Benj. Shooter said Jno. I). M. was the damndest rascal he ever saw, for taking authority of land from Lovit Goodyear. Morris wanted to give security, and Benj. S. said he should not take it. I had my child: it was very cold weather; Benj. Shooter would not let me go and get clothes for the child. I was arrested on a peace warrant, at the instance of Lovit Goodyear. Never saw him but once before that time; knew nothing of him; had made no threats against him. Benj. S. wanted M. to make up for §¡15 about the land; if he would he would free him — if not, he would put us in jail. We went finally to Allen’s bridge, along with Huggins, Benjamin and Berry Shooter; saw there Pinkney Shooter and John W. Moody; a good deal said there. Moody offered to stand our security till Monday morning here ; Benj.' S. would not take it; said he knew where he could get to the fire, and he would go. Moody and Wm. Goodyear, jr., had a talk, and then all advised Morris to make up — and offered §15 if Morris would, and give a right to his claim on the land. Benj. S. advised him as a friend to make it up, and if he did not, three or four more warrants were coming; if he would they would drop it all, and pay all costs. We went on to old Wm. Goodyear’s ; found there the family ; Freeman, Josiah Davis — Benj. S. went before Squire S., and Berry again there proposed to make up ; Morris stuck out; at last he said before he would have his family exposed so he would give the right; it was pretty late; they never paid a cent to Morris; I did not see Morris write his name to a paper; he asked to read the paper, and started, and young Wm. Goodyear jerked it out of his hand, and the Squire said it was right. Mr. Moody wanted a dowry out of me; I refused. We stayed there that night — but when it was made up we were discharged.- Benj. S. said, after the settlement, to Morris, he could go or he could stay, if they would let him.
    
      Cross-Examined: When we left Horry I expected to stay away but a little while. I had started to my father’s in North Carolina. I carried some of my things there, and had some things awhile at old Mrs. Morris’ house. Morris (my husband) got into Solomon’s house, and put a bed in it, and fastened it as it was before; did not nail it! At Wm. Goodyear’s, jr., Benj. S. offered $15 to make it up. My husband wanted at young Wm’s. to give security; Benj. said he did not want security no how; he wanted the title; Morris asked magistrate to let him go and get security; he refused; think Pluggins and Berry were then present. Young Wm. Goodyear offered me a horse, and a coat to cover the child; I refused both.— Bid not hear Moody speak of giving a bond; said he would stand security for us to be here on Monday morning; Benj. refused it; and he and Berry then first again proposed a settlement. Morris asked none of them to go back; Moody proposed to come home; Morris did not ask him to remain.— On the road for the bridge Berry did not propose to go with Morris to hunt security. Squire S. was sitting by the fire when we got to old Goodyear’s. Think I saw Josiah Davis when I got there. I and Mrs. Goodyear, and Sally Price, were in the kitchen part of the time. Benj. Shooter always refused to let Morris give security, and he threatened to put him in jail, and there keep him, if he did not make the title; and that others — Dayis, &c., were sitting by the fire at old Goodyear’s — heard this.
    Other evidence was given, both for the State and in behalf of the defendants, which it is deemed unnecessary to report.
    The defendants appealed and now moved this Court for a new trial on the grounds:
    
      1. Because his Honor erred in rejecting the evidence of title in the defendant, Lovit Goodyear, to the land, for which the offence was alleged, to procure a deed, upon the ground of irrelevancy, when it is insisted that, inasmuch as the evidence relied upon to prove the offence was wholly circumstantial, the proof of title offered was relevant and competent as a circumstance to rebut the presumption that the affidavit applied for was to procure a deed for the said land.
    2. Because his Honor erred in charging the jury that it was immaterial whether the affidavit taken by Lovit Goodyear was true or false. That if it was true, and applied for, obtained and used by the parties for the purpose of extorting the deed, the offence was proven.
    3. Because his Honor charged the jury that, admitting the title of defendant, Lovit Goodyear, to be good to the land, and the deed from Morris of no avail, yet, if the process was designed and used for the purpose of getting the prosecutor out of possession of the land, the parties could be convicted of a conspiracy under the indictment.
    4. Because the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendants of conspiracy at common law, or under the statute of 33 Edward I.
    
      Harllee, for appellants,
    cited 4 Bl. Com. 136; Went. PI. 79; 1 Hawk. 76 ; 2 Hill, 282; 2 Russ, on Or. 493, 694; 13 East, 226.
    
      Melver, Solicitor contra,
    cited Whar. Cr. L. 496; 1 Stra. 193; 1 Salk. 174 ; 10 Eng. C. L. R. 262; 1 Leach, 45.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

WaRdlaw, J.

The charge against the defendants is in effect that they corruptly conspired to pervert legal process to the unlawful purpose of extorting a deed from John D. Morris, and that they executed their purpose by the concerted means. No exception to the indictment has been taken; and only the general objection to the evidence, which is contained in the fourth ground of appeal, questions the sufficiency of the matters, which were shewn, to constitute a case of conspiracy. The truth of a concert, in which all the defendants were implicated, was found by the jury : that the concert was of such kind as to make the offence of conspiracy, will appear plainly from an examination of one case, the State vs. De Witt & Watts, (2 Hill, 282,) which contains a careful exposition of law, concerning this somewhat undefined offence; and if all the testimony for the prosecution is to be believed, there was in the transaction detailed, much to be reprehended, which need not be further noticed in this court.

Of the other grounds of appeal, the first objects to the exclusion of evidence, which was offered to show a title in the defendant, Lovit Goodyear, to the land; which is described in the deed alleged to have been extorted. It will be observed, that the defendants made no offer to show any previous conveyance from the prosecutor, John D. Morris, to Lovit Goodyear, and they had, from the prosecutor himself, evidence that Lovit Goodyear had bought the land and was in possession of part of it, and from other witnesses testimony given without objection, that his claim to it was well known, and his title considered good. It was a paper title in Lovit Goodyear, which the defendants desired to show, and which was excluded. They urge that such title might have been one circumstance to disprove the fraudulent purpose imputed to them in the use of the peace warrant. Why should a deed have been extorted, say they, when the grantee in the deed already had title ? It might be answered, why should a deed from JohnD. Morris have been taken at all, if the grantee already had title ? A deed was taken — something for it was paid, or at least promised, — and it was produced by one of the defendants on the trial. It is manifest that the possession, rather than the title, was the bone of contention before the peace warrant was taken. The same views of interest which led Lovit Goodyear to demand possession- from, the prosecutor in the morning, might have prompted a -wish to procure a surrender of all the prosecutor’s claims in the evening; the same advantages which were proposed to themselves in taking the deed, might have tempted those who took it, to acquire it unfairly; the same hope of acquiring exclusive possession by cheap and speedy means, which would have moved a claimant, whose title was doubtful, to obtain a conveyance from a squatter in possession, might have moved a true owner to the same course. The circumstance, which the defendant’s think might have been made to appear by the testimony which was excluded, was then at best of a' very equivocal kind, and for their purpose it was as well shown by the parol statements which were given in evidence, as it would have been by any chain of title. Matters wholly collateral, and especially those which are so remotely relevant to the issue as the title of Lovit Goodyear was here, may be shown by evidence which would be insufficient to establish them, if they were directly in question. A full examination of a title to land, distinguished from the possession, would employ a Court of Sessions in a very unusual, and perhaps very tedious inquiry; would be inconclusive, if all persons having interest in the examination would aid in making it, and would probably be defective for want of some of these persons. It ought not to be entered upon without manifest necessity, and there was not such necessity here.

The second and third grounds of appeal are sufficiently answered in the report. The opinions expressed by the Circuit Judge to the jury, were well warranted by the cases which have been cited at the bar, and have the sanction of this Court.

The motion is dismissed.

O’Neall, Withers' Whither, Glover and MüNRO, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.