Summary
In S. v. Earwood, 75 N.C. 210, the only question decided was the admissibility of evidence upon which a new trial was given.
Summary of this case from S. v. Van PeltOpinion
June Term, 1876.
Evidence — Declarations.
The declarations of an alleged conspirator, made in the absence of his coconspirators after the transaction, are not competent evidence against any one except the party making such declarations.
INDICTMENT, tried by Watts, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of HENDERSON.
The defendants were indicted for a conspiracy to take away the wife and the goods and chattels of N.J. Moore.
N.J. Moore and Julia Johnson intermarried in January, 1875, and lived together some months, when they separated. She soon returned to her husband and remained two weeks, when she again left him. On the night of the day she left, together with the defendants, among whom were her mother, two brothers and a brother-in-law, she went to the house of her husband, who forbade them to enter. They walked in, and stated that they had come for the wife's clothes. He forbade them to touch anything. They did take her things, and offered no further violence.
Upon the trial the solicitor offered in evidence the declaration of Monroe Earwood, one of the defendants, made after the transaction above set forth, but not in the presence of the other defendants. The counsel for the defendant objected; the objection was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
There was a verdict of guilty, and the defendants moved for a new trial. The motion was overruled, and defendants appealed.
Attorney-General Hargrove for the State.
J. H. Merrimon for the prisoners.
The declarations of one of the alleged conspirators, made in the absence of the others, after the transaction was over, (211) introduced by the State to prove the conspiracy, were clearly incompetent against any one except himself. There is error.
PER CURIAM. Venire de novo.
Cited: S. v. Jackson, 82 N.C. 568; S. v. Van Pelt, 136 N.C. 645.