State v. . Oliver
Cases that cite this one
29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Dechkovskaia v. Dechkovskaia (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)
- Hodes & Nauser, MDS, P.A. v. Schmidt (Kan. 2019)
- State v. Sherron (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
- Crowell v. Crowell (N.C. 1920)
- State v. . Nipper (N.C. 1914)
- State v. . Dowell (N.C. 1890)
- State v. Barnes (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)
- State v. Alford (N.C. 1968)
- Steele v. Steele (District Court, District of Columbia 1946)
- Hampton v. North Carolina Pulp Co. (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1943)
- Rozell v. Rozell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1939)
- David v. David (Md. 1932)
- Crosby v. Crosby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1930)
- La Van Allen v. Allen (N.Y. 1927)
- Austin v. Austin (Miss. 1924)
- State v. Falkner (N.C. 1921)
- Crowell v. . Crowell (N.C. 1920)
- Freeman v. Belfer (N.C. 1917)
- In re Fain (N.C. 1916)
- Howell v. . Howell (N.C. 1913)
- Howell v. Howell (N.C. 1913)
- Gill v. Board of Commissioners (N.C. 1912)
- State v. Fulton (N.C. 1908)
- Powell v. . Benthall (N.C. 1904)
- State v. Jones (N.C. 1903)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
But from motives of public policy, — in order to preserve the sanctity of the domestic circle, the Courts will not listen to trivial complaints.
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.
No general rule can be applied, but each case must depend upon the circumstances surrounding it.
Without adverting in detail to the facts established by the special verdict in this case, we think that they show both malice and cruelty.
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.
Let it be certified that the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
Per CuriAM. Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.