The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-02-25
MUST A WITNESS
ANSWER?
The Argument Before Su-
preme Court in Briggs
Case Yesterday.

Argument was heard in the Supreme
Court yesterday morning in the case of
r. G. Briggs, of Wilmington. for con-
tempt Of court in refusing to answer
certain questions put to him while on the
witness stand in the trial of George T.
Morgan for maintaining gaming house
and playing cards for money, at the last
term of Wilson County Court, before
Judge Fred Moore.
p. G. Briggs was witness for the State
in the prosecution of Morgan, and Sollci-
tor c. c. Daniels asked him:
Have YOU been in the defendants
room on the west side of Goldsboro street.
in Wilson, ~ c., within the last two
years." The Witness stated that he de-
cnned to answer the question on the
ground that his answer to the question
might tend to incriminate him. Before the
witness finally declined to answer this
question the solicitor asked him the fol-
towing additional questions: Describe
the room?" Have you within the last
TWO years seen a game of cards played
in the defendants room for money or
other thing of value at which you did
not participated" "Have you within the
last two years seen game of cards play
ed in the defendants room for money or
other thing of value IN which you did
participated"
The witness declining to answer each
of the questions. Judge Moore, holding
that under Sec. 1916 of The Code at witness
is not privileged from answering the
question, and all other pertinent ques-
tons relative to the charge against the
defendant, but should be compelled to an
swer, informed the witness that he must
answer the questions. The witness again
declined to answer. and the court adj
Judged him guilty OF contempt From this
Judgment Briggs appealed.
The case was argued yesterday by At
torney General R. d. Gilmer for the
State, and Senator John E. Woodland. OF
Wilson, for the defendant.
General Gimer submitted that section
1915 OF The Code was sufficient to pro-
tect the constitutional privilege of the
witness That section reads: No per-
son shall be excused on any prosecution
from testifying touching any unlawful
gaming done by himself or others; but no
discovery made by the witness upon such
examination shall be used against him
in any penal or criminal prosecution, and
he shall be altogether pardoned OF the
offelse so done or participated in by
him.
The Attorney General further said that
it had been held that where a statute
provided that testimony given by WIT
ness shall not be used against him in any
criminal proceeding for the same offense
about which he is examined, such wit
ness may be required to testify. Statutes
of this kind had been declared to be
sufficient to protect the constitutional
privilege OF the witness And where the
statute provided that the witness in such
cases should have absolute immunity
from punishment, the rule that he may
be compelled to testify seemed to be prac-
tically universal.
Mr.. Woodland contended that the sec
ton of The Code quoted did not afford
absolute protection and immunity to the
witness and quoted the United States SUI
preme Court to the effect that legislation
can not abridge constitutional privilege,
and that it can not replace or supply
one, at least unless it is so broad as to
have the same extent IN scope and effect,
that no statute which leaves the witness
subject to prosecution after he answers
the eliminating questions can have the
effect of supplantng the privilege con-
ferred by the Constitution of the United
States
1t was urged that the legislative enact
ment requiring the witness to answn" the
questions propounded. denied to him
right guaranteed to every citizen claiming
his constitutional privilege, and that the
act is, therefore. unconstitutional and
void.
Mr.. Woodward further contended that
the section was void for that. in VIOLA
ton of Article 1. Section 8, of the Con-
stitution of North Carolina. it was an
attempt, upon The part of the legislative
branch of the government. to usurp the
prerogative fthe executive.
n a. L.