Court Opinion

ID: 9809662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:20:05.750039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:30.320260
License: Public Domain

MONTGOMERY, J.,
dissenting.. I regret to have to entet my dissent to the opinion of the Court, but after a careful examination of the evidence I am so clearly of the opinion that his Honor correctly instructed the jury as to their duty that I am constrained to do so. The State introduced evidence to the effect that the prosecuting witness, Mac Hudson, a negro, was employed in a barroom conducted by a negro in the city of New Bern, as a clerk, and that about 11 o’clock one Saturday night in July, 1903, the defendant Thomas Green, together with a man by the name of Blowers, both white men, entered the barroom and called for Hudson; that Hudson came into the room, whereupon Flowers demanded of him to know what he had been saying about the defendant Green, and that instantly a dispute arose between Blowers and Pludson, which resulted in Hudson being *662knocked down by Flowers. There was evidence, too, that the defendant Green threw a bottle, partly filled with benzine, which struck Hudson on the forehead. The injury from the blow was a severe one. Prior to the throwing of the bottle by Green there had been no words between Green and Pludson and no demonstration by Iiudson against Green, and that Green cursed Hudson before he struck him with the bottle. Green was examined as a witness in his OAvn behalf, and said that Pludson went behind the counter and got the pot and threw it at him, and that he struck Hudson with the bottle. He said further that he had to strike Hudson to keep Hudson from striking him, and that Hudson was drinking, and advancing on him. On his cross-examination, however, he said that Hudson was fifteen or twenty feet off and behind the counter when he, the witness, threw the bottle at him, and that he threw the bottle at him because Hudson had thrown the pot at him. In the conclusion of his cross-examination he admitted, too, that he thought Hudson had intended to strike Flowers with the measuring pot when he threw it. The Court instructed the jury that if they believed the evidence they should convict the defendant.
From a careful examination of the evidence in the case, and from the testimony, especially of the defendant, it appears that even if Hudson had .ever intended ’to or actually did have trouble with Green, the defendant, that he (Green) provoked it and was therefore himself guilty. But his own cross-examination shows that ITudson was behind his counter, fifteen or twenty steps from the defendant at the time when the defendant threw the bottle of benzine.
The defendant, as we have seen, admitted, too, that he thought Pludson, when he threw the measuring pot intended to strike Flowers who had knocked Hudson down. The testimony of the defendant in respect to the reason which *663be gave for bis assault on Hudson, viz., that be threw the bottle of benzine at Hudson because Hudson bad thrown the measuring pot at him, cannot be a justification or excuse for bis act. The law does not justify an assault by way of retaliation or revenge for a blow previously received. State v. Gibson, 32 N. C., 214. It appears further that Green did not deny that be cursed Hudson before any demonstration or word bad been made or spoken by Hudson, and, as we have seen, the defendant admitted at the end of bis cross-examination that be thought Hudson threw the measuring pot at Flowers.
Upon the whole matter, as I see it, there were no variant aspects of the evidence to be submitted to the jury. If it was true, the defendant was guilty in law; otherwise, he was not. His Honor expressed no opinion as to whether the jury ought or ought not to believe the evidence. He simply said, “If you believe the evidence, the defendant is guilty.”