Case Name: STATE v. EDWARD BERNARD DAY, EUGENE DAVIS, JOSEPH WILLIAM FREELOW, and LEWIS STANLEY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1966-11-09
Citations: 268 N.C. 464
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. EDWARD BERNARD DAY, EUGENE DAVIS, JOSEPH WILLIAM FREELOW, and LEWIS STANLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 268
Pages: 464–466

Head Matter:
STATE v. EDWARD BERNARD DAY, EUGENE DAVIS, JOSEPH WILLIAM FREELOW, and LEWIS STANLEY.
(Filed 9 November, 1966.)
Appeal by defendants from McConnell, J., August 30, 1965, Criminal (Mixed) Session of UNION.
The four defendants were indicted in a bill charging that they, on October 9, 1964, “unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously, having in their possession and with the use and threatened use of firearms, and other dangerous weapons, implements, and means, to wit: a pistol, whereby the life of Lessie Newsome was endangered and threatened, did then and there unlawfully, wilfully, forcibly, violently and feloniously take, steal, and carry away money of the value of over $300.00 from the presence, person, place of business, and residence of Lessie Newsome,” etc., a violation of G.S. 14-87.
Defendants were represented by counsel.
Evidence offered by the State tended to show the facts narrated below.
Three Newsome sisters, Miss Mattie, aged 76, Miss Lillie, aged 61, and Miss Lessie, aged 59, and their unmarried brother, Wid Newsome, aged 63, resided in their farm dwelling some nine miles from Monroe; the home of their nearest neighbor was a quarter of a mile or so away. They had $3,000.00 in one hundred dollar bills in a trunk; $1,000.00 in fifty dollar bills in a pocketbook, which was in a cupboard or cabinet; and “$500.00 of change” in other cabinets “in different kinds of containers, snuff boxes and tobacco cans and so forth.”
On the morning of October 9, 1964, Wid left home about .8:30 “to see about some seed wheat.” The four defendants “drove up in the yard” about 10:00 a.m. At that time, the three sisters were the only persons in the Newsome house. Defendant Davis got out of the car and, after obtaining permission, got a bucket, put water in the car, and got back in the car. Shortly thereafter, he came back to the house, and at that time told Miss Lillie, who came to the door, that “he heard Mr. Newsome had some sweet potatoes to sell.” She replied, succinctly: “He’s not.” Thereupon, the four defendants, each having a pistol in his hand, forced their way into the New-some home. Defendant Davis struck Miss Lillie with the blackjack and knocked her down. The three sisters began to scream and holler. They were threatened, tied, gagged and blindfolded. Defendant Davis said, “When we get all the money we can find, we’re going to set this house with gas and burn you all up in here.”
For thirty minutes or more, in the hearing of the three sisters, the Newsome house was ransacked and plundered. The defendants left when Wid Newsome and another brother, Hamp Newsome, approached. Freelow left on foot. Day, Davis and Stanley covered their departure in the car by drawing their pistols and threatening Wid and Hamp. The Newsome money, referred to above, was gone. The house was in a state of complete upheaval and disorder; the contents of shelves, cabinets, chests, the trunk, also bedclothes, were scattered over the floor, and the mattresses were cut, etc.
Each defendant testified he was not in Union County on October 9, 1964, and was not involved in any way in the incidents referred to in the State’s evidence.
As to each defendant, the jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.” As to each defendant, a judgment imposing a prison sentence was pronounced. Defendants excepted and appealed.
Attorney• General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General McGalliard and Staff Attorney White for the State.
Plumides & Plumides and Jerry W. Whitley for defendant appellants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Each of the assignments of error brought forward in defendants' brief has been carefully considered. Defendants' contention in respect of each assignment is fully considered and answered in the Attorney General's brief. Suffice to say, none of the assignments discloses prejudicial error or presents a question of sufficient merit to require or warrant discussion. The jury, on un-contradicted evidence, found the alleged (serious and despicable) crime was committed; and, on conflicting evidence, found said crime was committed by these defendants.
No error.