Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 N.C. 60

State v. . Oliver

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1874

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1874-01-05

INDICTMENT, for an Assault and Battery, tried before his Honor, Judge Mitchdl, at the Fall Term, 1873, of Alexander Superior Court. On the trial, the jury found the following facts: Defendant came home intoxicated one morning after breakfast was over; got some raw bacon, said it had skippers on it, and told his wife she would not clean it.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We may assume that the old doctrine that a husband has a right to whip his wife provided he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not law in North Carolina. Indeed, the Courts have advanced from that barbarism until they have reached the position that the husband has no right to chastise his wife under any circumstances.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Powell v. . Benthall

““If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 4 N.C. App. 386 - State v. Sherron

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2019

1 district · 16 state decisions

30187418801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Settle, J.

¶1 We may assume that the old doctrine, that a husband had a right to whip his wife', provided he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not law in North Carolina. Indeed, the Courts have advanced from that barbarism until they have reached the position, that the husband has no right to chastise his wife, under any circumstances.

¶2 But from motives of public policy, — in order to preserve the sanctity of the domestic circle, the Courts will not listen to trivial complaints.

¶3 If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better *62 to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.

¶4 No general rule can be applied, but each case must depend upon the circumstances surrounding it.

¶5 Without adverting in detail to the facts established by the special verdict in this case, we think that they show both malice and cruelty.

¶6 In fact, it is difficult to conceive how a man, who has promised, upon the altar to love, comfort, honor, and keep a woman, can lay rude and violent hands upon her, without having malice and cruelty in his heart.

¶7 Let it be certified that the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

¶8 Per CuriAM. Judgment affirmed.

/70/nc/60 · .json · Public domain