Case Name: STATE v. S. P. SATTERFIELD
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1897-09
Citations: 121 N.C. 558
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. S. P. SATTERFIELD.
Judges: Clark:, J.: T concur in the dissenting opinion.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 558–563

Head Matter:
STATE v. S. P. SATTERFIELD.
Indictment for Official Negligence — Officers—Criminal Negligence — Evidence— Trial.
1. Whether the evidence in the tiial of an indictment was such as justified the jury in proceeding to a verdict — such evidence as would reasonably satisfy an impartial mind — is a preliminary question for this Court on appeal.
2. In the trial of an indictment against the defendant, who was principal Clerk of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of 1895, for negligently permitting a bill, which had not been passed, to be delivered to the enrolling clerk to be enrolled, it appeared that on the day the General Assembly was about to adjourn there were 861 bills signed by the Speaker including the one in question; that defendant was the custodian of the bills and kept them in his office but had to leave liis office frequently; that lie had four or five assistant clerks and that members of the General Assembly and other persons had access to his office; that the bill in question was tabled and so mart ed on the hack and was seen in the hands of the defendant after being marked, and that the copyist who enrolled the bill did not receive it from the defendant and did not notice its endorsement and that defendant did not speak to her concerning the bill. Subsequently the bill was sent to the Secretary of State’’s office, with the signatures of the Speakers, and appeared upon the Statute books; Held, that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty. (Montgomery, J., dissents arguendo, in which Olaik, J., joins.)
INDICTMENT for liegligencC in the discharge of the duties of the office of Principal Clerk of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of North Carolina, tried before Mclver, J., and a jury at January Term, 1896, of Wajke Superior Court. There was a verdict of guilty and defendant moved to set aside the verdict as against the testimony for a new trial, &c. The motion was refused and defendant was adjudged to pay a fine of $250 and the costs, and appealed.
Mr. T. P. Devereux, for the State.
Mr. J. O. L. Harris, for defendant (appellant).

Opinion:
Faircloth, C. J.:
The defendant is indicted as principal clerk of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly for causing and permitting to he delivered to the enrolling clerk a certain pretended Act of Assemhlj'- for enrollment. The Assembly was about to adjourn and on March 13, 1895, three hundred and sixty-one bills were signed by the Speaker, including this bill No. 1018. The defendant was custodian of all bills and kept them in his office not far from the Speaker's desk, and he had to leave his office frequently and attend to his duties in front of the Speaker. It appeared also that the defendant necessarily had four or five assistant clerks and that the members and other persons had access to the office; that, on that day, there was much crowd and confusion. It appears that the bill was tabled on the preceding evening and ho marked on the back of it — -and one witness testified that said bill and others, after the stamp "tabled" was on it, were seen in the hands of the defendant. On the same day a lady copyist for the enrolling clerk copied said bill and returned it to her principal. She testified that the defendant did not give her the bill and never spoke to her about it, and that she did not notice the back of the bill. The bill was soon afterwards found on the Statute book.
We have referred to this much of the evidence merety to show the situation, and the strongest aspect of it for the State. One witness testified that one of the assistant clerks had charge of all bills, after they rvere "sorted" and placed in pigeon holes in the desk of the office; that said assistant had the key to this desk where all hills were kept, and that he had custody of the bills. The defendant testified that he had no knowledge or information how the enrobing clerk came in possession of said bill. There were ten or twelve 'witnesses examined and we have carofull)'- read the whole evidence, and we are of opinion that the defendant's motion in arrest ought to have been granted.
The dirty of drawing the line between a scintilla and evidence fit for the jury is sometimes difficult and delicate, but it is important and the Court must assume the responsibility. It is a preliminary question for the Court who must find, not that there is absolutely no evidence, but that the evidence is such as would justify the jury in proceeding to a verdict — such evidence as will reasonably satisfy an impartial mind. Commissioners v. Clark. 94 U. S., 278; Wittskowsky v. Wasson, 71 N. C., 451; Young v. Railroad, 116 N C., 932; State v. Chancy, 110 N. C., 507.
Error.