Court Opinion

ID: 9811406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:19:20.233041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:26.425190
License: Public Domain

Clabk, J.,
dissenting. The indictment charged that the defendant “unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously did attempt to destroy the reputation of Miss Beulah Gaither, she being an innocent woman, by calling her ‘a damned bitch,’ and T had a quarter for you,’ meaning thereby that she was incontinent, this being said in the presence of third parties.” The defendant moved to quash 'the indictment because it did not charge a criminal offense. Motion allowed, and appeal by the State.
The Code, sec. 1113, makes it a misdemeanor for any person to “attempt, in wanton and malicious manner, to destroy the reputation of an innocent woman, by words written or spoken, which amount to a charge of'incontinency.”
The word “bitch” is thus defined in Webster’s International Dictionary: “1. Eemale of the canine kind, as of dog, wolf and fox. 2. An opprobrious name for a woman, especially a lewd woman. Pope.” The defendant did not mean to apply the first definition to her, and there can be no doubt that he meant the second, and to call her a “lewd woman,” especially when coupled with the profane expletive and the addition of the words, “I had a quarter for you,” which were clearly meant to convey the impression to the bystanders that she was a woman who had her price. We are told that his Honor quashed the bill on the ground that these words did not amount to a charge of incontinency. This was error. Whether the defendant used the words or not, and whether the prosecutrix was an innocent woman within the meaning of the statute as construed in State v. Brown, 100 N. C., 519, are questions of fact for the jury.
*555' It is very questionable whether the words in the statute in a “wanton and malicious manner” are sufficiently charged by the words used in the indictment — -“unlawfully and wilfully.” State v. Morgan, 98 N. C., 641; State v. Tweedy, 115 N. C., 704. Though words of the same meaning as those used in the statute can be substituted in an indictment, it is best usually to follow the words of the statute. Still, an indictment should never be quashed for such defects, but a new bill should be sent. State v. Flowers, 109 N. C., 841; State v. Skidmore, Ibid, 795; State v. Caldwell, 112 N. C., 854; State v. Colbert, 75 N. C., 368. As the case goes back, the Solicitor may consider whether he shall not send a new bill in the words-of the statute.
MONTGOMERY, J. I concur in the dissenting opinion.