Opinion
10-28-1904
STATE v. HARRIS et al.
Herbert H. Ward, Atty. Gen., and Robert H. Richards, Dep. Atty. Gen., for the State. Arley B. Magee and James M. Satterfield, for defendants.
Mary E. Harris and others were indicted for assault, and two of them convicted.
Argued before , and PENNEWILL, J.
Herbert H. Ward, Atty. Gen., and Robert H. Richards, Dep. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Arley B. Magee and James M. Satterfield, for defendants.
The prisoners, being the mother-in-law, the wife, and the sister-in-law, respectively, of the prosecuting witness, were indicted for an assault and battery upon the latter at his home, in the town of Harrington. At the trial the prosecuting witness, Wilmore D. Harmon, was sworn, and testified to the relations existing between himself and the prisoners, and that Mary V. Harmon, one of the prisoners, was his wife. Thereupon the counsel for the defendant objected to the competency of the said witness Harmon on the ground that a husband was disqualified from testifying in a criminal action for or against his wife.
LORE, C. J. A husband, in criminal law, is permitted to testify against the wife concerning an assault upon his own person. In 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 343, the rule is thus stated: "Indeed, Mr. East considered it to be settled that, in all cases of personal injuries committed by the husband or wife against each other, the injured party is an admissible witness against the other." Objection overruled.
The court gave the usual charge in assault and battery cases.
Verdict: Mary E. Harris, guilty. Mary V. Harmon, guilty, with a recommendation to the mercy of the court. Lucius Neil, not guilty.