Townsend v. . McCullum

95 S.E. 364, 175 N.C. 698, 1918 N.C. LEXIS 137
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 20, 1918·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pee Cttbiam :

The great weight of evidence in this case tends to prove that defendant is a merchant in the town of Star, N. C.; that on 31 M^rch, 1916, he was engaged in shooting sparrows in the town and very near the Leach Hotel with a 27 Winchester rifle. In firing the rifle he sent a ball into the toilet of the hotel, which was sixty yards distant from where defendant was shooting and shot plaintiff in the head, inflicting a painful and severe wound.

We have examined the entire evidence and record and find no error. In the absence of prohibitive ordinance the defendant was guilty of such reckless conduct, if the evidence is to be believed, as must render him liable to plaintiff for the injury inflicted.

If defendant had killed plaintiff he would probably have to answer a charge of manslaughter as well as this demand for damages.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Townsend v. . McCullum, 95 S.E. 364, 175 N.C. 698, 1918 N.C. LEXIS 137 (N.C. 1918).

95 S.E. 364 (Townsend v. . McCullum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Belk v. Boyce
138 S.E.2d 789 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Snyder v. Walters
19 Pa. D. & C. 550 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1933)