Case Name: STATE v. ROGERS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1901-03-12
Citations: 128 N.C. 576
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. ROGERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
STATE v. ROGERS.
(Filed March 12, 1901.)
ELECTIONS — Intimidation of Voters — Expulsion from Ghuroh — The Code, Seo. 2715.
Under The Code, Sec. 2715, the expulsion of a person from a church because he voted the Democratic ticket is not punishable.
IhdictmbNT against George Rogers and others, heard by Judge H. R. Slarbuch, at October Term, 1900, of Vance County Superior Court. From a quashal of the indictment, the Solicitor for the State appealed.
Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.
T. T. Hieles, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Cooic, J.
The defendants were indicted under sec. 2715 of The Code. Upon motion of defendant's counsel, the Court quashed the bill of indictment and the State appealed.
The statute is as follows: "Any person who shall discharge from employment, withdraw patronage from, or otherwise injure, threaten, oppress or attempt to intimidate any qualified voters of the State, because of the vote such voter may or may not have cast in, any election, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
The indictment charges the defendants with having injured, threatened, oppressed and attempted h> intimidate the proseeutor, a duly qualified voter, by expelling him from the church of which he and they were members, on account of his having voted the Democratic ticket at the ejection held in August, 1900.
The statute being penal, must be construed strictly, not by implication or otherwise than by its strict word's and plain signification.
The object -of the statute is to secure to' the voter the exercise of the elective franchise free from pecuniary loss, personal injury or physical restraint — neither element of which is embraced in his expulsion from the church. The injury or oppression, if any, done to' the voter-, was not of a physical mature. "While he may have felt mortified or humiliated in being excluded from the fellowship of his associates in the exercise of the rites of that body of Christian believers., bold-ing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority, land to that extent injured and oppressed, yet be suffered no loss of property or gain; nor was he in any way restrained of his liberty or otherwise controlled in the exercise of his personal conduct. There is no error.
Affirmed.