State v. . Rowland

172 S.E. 182, 205 N.C. 544, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 8

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: January 10, 1934
• Status: Published

Opinion

Adams, J.

Tbe defendant was indicted in two counts charging bina witb tbe wilful abandonment of bis wife and tbe wilful neglect and refusal to provide adequate support for bis wife and tbeir children while they were living together. Tbe jury returned a general verdict finding tbe defendant guilty on both counts, and from tbe judgment pronounced be appealed to. this Court.

Upon bis cross-examination tbe defendant admitted that be bad not provided a borne for bis wife or contributed anything to her support, and in effect that be bad abandoned her, bis defense being that tbe abandonment was not wilful. As tbe evidence was conflicting tbe case could not properly have been withdrawn from tbe jury.

Tbe second, fourth, and fifth exceptions relate to tbe exclusion of evidence, but as tbe answers to tbe several questions are not revealed tbe exceptions are not meritorious. For aught that appears tbe answers may have been unfavorable to tbe appellant. Snyder v. Asheboro, 182 N. C., 708; Barbee v. Davis, 187 N. C., 78; New Bern v. Hinton, 190 N. C., 108.

Declarations or admissions of tbe wife alleged to have been made to tbe defendant as to her condition at tbe time of her marriage were incompetent; but tbe defendant testified that be “learned of her condition of being pregnant” at that time and that be left her for this reason. He, therefore, bad tbe benefit of this circumstance in reference to tbe question whether bis abandonment was wilful.

There was no error in tbe charge or in denying tbe motion to arrest tbe judgment or to set aside tbe verdict.

No error.