Queen vs.

Facts:
Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker were cast
away in a storm while on an English yacht. The yacht was damaged by the
storm forcing the four men to abandon it and escape in an open boat that
belonged to that yacht. They had no supply of food and water except for
two tins of turnips. On the fourth day they were able to catch a small
turtle, which they completely consumed by the twelfth day. After twenty
days, after eating only the turnips and the small turtle and being over
1,000 miles from land, Stephens and Dudley decided, without the consent
of Brooks that they would kill and eat Parker. He was the youngest and
weakest of them all. Parker did not consent to his killing, but he was too
weak to resist. Dudley offered a prayer for forgiveness and then put a
knife to Parker's throat and killed him. Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks all
fed upon Parker's body for four days. On the fourth day they were
rescued, but were not in good health. If the three remaining men had not
fed upon Parker's body, they probably would have died of famine before
they were eventually rescued. Parker would likely have died before them,
because he was in a much weaker state. Upon returning to land, Dudley
and Stephens were arrested and brought to trial.
Procedure:
The jury issued a special verdict. They found that there was no greater
necessity to kill Parker, than there was to kill any of the others. However,
the jury was unable to decide whether the killing of Parker was indeed a
felony.
Issue:
Are Dudley and Stephens guilty of murder for killing Richard Parker?
Holding:
Yes. Where a private person, acting on his own judgment, takes the life of
another, he is guilty of murder, unless his act can be justified by selfdefense. The defendants were not protecting themselves against any act
of Parker.
Reasoning:The defendants were subject to terrible temptation and
sufferings that may break down the bodily power of the strongest man
and try his conscience, but nevertheless the defendants put a weak,
innocent boy to death in order to preserve their own lives. They denied
the boy any possible chance of survival. The record shows that the
defendants were rescued four days after the killing of the boy, but they
were not to know that they would not be rescued within hours or the next
day, giving all four a decent chance to survive. If they were rescued the
next day, the killing would have been unnecessary and profitless. The
counsel for the defendants urges that they killed out of necessity;

however, necessity of a private nature pertains to self-defense, which

allows a man to take another's life in his own defense. Parker was not a
threat to the defendants' lives; in fact, he was weak and could not offer
any resistance. While it may have been necessary to kill Parker for their
own survival, it is not an excusable or justifiable killing. This would mean
that if a man was poor and without clothes, he would be permitted to
steal another man's money and clothes in order to save himself. The only
justifiable homicide of a private nature is the defense against the force of
a man's person, house, or goods. This necessity must be inevitable. While
the court in this case did not deem the acts of the defendants devilish,
they still constitute murder.

STATEvs.JESSEBLACK
SUPREMECOURTOFNORTHCAROLINA,RALEIGH
60N.C.266
June,1864,Decided
PRIORHISTORY:
Thiswasanindictmentforassaultandbatterytriedbefore
BAILEY,Judge,atTermofAsheSuperiorCourt,1864.The
defendantwasindictedforanassaultonTamseyBlack,his
wife.Theevidenceshowedthatthedefendantandhiswifelived
separatefromeachother.Thedefendantwaspassingbythe
houseofoneKoonce,wherehiswifethenresided,whenshe
calledtohiminanangrymannerandaskedhimifhehad
patchedSalDaly'sbonnet,(SalDalybeingawomanofill
fame.)Shethenwentintothehouseanddefendantfollowedher
andaskedherwhatshewanted,whensherepeatedherquestion
aboutthebonnet.Angrywordsthenpassedbetweenthem.He
accusedherofconnectionwithanegromanandshecalledhim
ahogthief,whereuponthedefendantseizedherbyherhairand
pulledherdownuponthefloorandheldherthereforsometime.
Hegavehernoblows,butshestatedonthetrialthatherhead
wasconsiderablyhurtandthatherthroatwasinjuredand
continuedsoreforseveralmonths,butthathedidnotchokeher
norattempttodoso.Atthetrialshewasentirelyrecovered.

Aftershegotupfromthefloorshecontinuedherabuseofhim.
Averdictofguiltywasentered,subjecttotheopinionofthe
Court.TheJudgebeingofopinionwiththeStategavejudgment
accordingly.HEADNOTES:
Ahusbandcannotbeconvictedofabatteryonhiswifeunless
heinflictsapermanentinjuryorusessuchexcessiveviolenceor
crueltyasindicatesmalignityorvindictiveness;anditmakesno
differencethatthehusbandandwifearelivingseparateby
agreement.ThecasesoftheStatevs.Pendergrass,2Dev.and
Bat.,365,andJoynervs.Joyner,6Jones,Eq.,325,citedand
approved.COUNSEL:
Winston,Sr.,fortheState.Nocounselforthedefendantinthis
Court.

OPINION:
PEARSON,C.J.Ahusbandisresponsiblefortheactsofhis
wife,andheisrequiredtogovernhishousehold,andforthat
purposethelawpermitshimtousetowardshiswifesucha
degreeofforceasisnecessarytocontrolanunrulytemperand
makeherbehaveherself;andunlesssomepermanentinjurybe
inflicted,ortherebeanexcessofviolence,orsuchadegreeof
crueltyasshowsthatitisinflictedtogratifyhisownbad
passions,thelawwillnotinvadethedomesticforumorgo
behindthecurtain.Itpreferstoleavethepartiestothemselves,
asthebestmodeofinducingthemtomakethematterupand
livetogetherasmanandwifeshould.Certainlytheexposureof
ascenelikethatsetoutinthiscasecandonogood.Inrespectto
theparties,apublicexhibitionintheCourtHouseofsuch
quarrelsandfightsbetweenmanandwife,widensthebreach,
makesareconciliationalmostimpossible,andencourages
insubordination;andinrespecttothepublic,ithasapernicious
tendency:so,probonopulico,suchmattersareexcludedfrom
theCourts,unlessthereisapermanentinjuryorexcessive
violenceorcrueltyindicatingmalignityandvindictiveness.In

thiscasethewifecommencedthequarrel.Thehusband,ina
passionprovokedbyexcessiveabuse,pulledheruponthefloor
bythehair,butrestrainedhimself,didnotstrikeablow,andshe
admitshedidnotchokeher,andshecontinuedtoabusehim
aftershegotup.Uponthisstateoffactsthejuryoughttohave
beenchargedinfavorofthedefendant.Statevs.Pendergrass,2
Dev.andBat.,365;Joynervs.Joyner,6JonesEq.322,325.It
wasinsistedbyMr.Winstonthat,admittingsuchtobethelaw
whenthehusbandandwifelivedtogether,itdidnotapply
when,asinthiscase,theywerelivingapart.Thatmaybeso
whenthereisadivorce"frombedandboard,"becausethelaw
thenrecognizesandallowstheseparation,butitcantakeno
noticeofaprivateagreementtoliveseparate.Thehusbandis
stillresponsibleforheracts,andthemarriagerelationandits
incidentsremainunaffected.Thisdecisionmustbecertifiedto
theSuperiorCourtoflawforAsheCountythatitmayproceed
accordingtolaw.