Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/560

The Supreme Court of North Carolina. religion." Judge Gaston was a devout and consistent member of the Roman Catholic church. He accepted his election to the bench, and maintained, in a very strong and remarkable letter, that there was no organ ization, form of faith, or creed which could be called the Protestant religion, that no Catholic as such denied any truth held by

Protestants, and that, considering the gene ral tenor of the Con stitution, it was clear that this provision was not intended to dis qualify Catholics from office. All possible question on the subject was laid to rest by the amendments to the Constitution made by the Convention of 1835In 1840 Judge Gas ton was solicited by the then dominant party to accept the post of United States Senator. This was no mere compliment. He could have been elected without a con test. But like ChiefJustice Ruffin, under similar circumstances, WILLIAM he declined the prof fered honor. In a let ter to Gen. John G. Bynum, October, 1840, he expressed his refusal, and that upon the ground that the duties of the post he then filled were " as important to the public wel fare as any services which I could render in the political station to which you invite me." Judge Gaston's opinions are well rounded, and betray scholarship as well as legal learn ing. Among those most deserving of notice are State v. Will, 18 N. C. 121, which holds that if a slave in self-defence, under circum stances strongly calculated to excite his passions of terror and resentment, kills his

525

overseer or his master, the homicide under such circumstances is not murder, but man slaughter. The opinion is a clear, intelligent discussion of the rights of the slave in such circumstances. The case is further remark able for the very full and able briefs of counsel (printed in the report of the case) by B. F. Moore, George W. Mordecai, and AttorneyGeneral J. R. J. Daniel. Indeed the brief of Mr. Moore, in this case, first gave him that established repu tation which ripened in a few years into the admitted leadership of the North Carolina bar. In State v. Haney, 19 N. C. 390, Judge Gaston lays down the rule, since settled law, that the unsupported testimony of an ac complice, if it pro duces entire belief in the prisoner's guilt, is sufficient to warrant a conviction, and that the propriety of cautioningthe jury against placing too much con fidence in testimony of that nature must GASTON be left to the discre tion of the trial judge. In Thomas v. Alexander, 19 N. C. 385, he lays down, what is now also settled law, that on appeal the presumption is in favor of the correctness of the proceedings and judgment below, and that such judgment will be affirmed unless the appellant shows that there was error. In State v. Manuel, 20 N. C. 122, he affirms the constitutionality of the act requiring defendants convicted of crime to work out the fine and court costs, and that this is not prohibited by the clause forbid ding imprisonment for debt, that while the fine and costs may be collected as a debt by