This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1943/mb.ashx Message Board Post: A decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court in the case The State v. Solomon ROPER provides a rather colorful, though embarrassing account relating to the indictment and conviction of this Solomon ROPER on charges that would be the modern equivalent of indecent exposure. The case gives few genealogical details, but still adds a bit of color to someone's family history. Since the full text of this decision is readily available online, I will transcribe here only sufficient details to acquaint the researcher with basic facts of this case. The appearance of the Supreme Court decision is suggestive though that there may be additional records within Supreme Court briefs, an appellate record and trial court records which might contain some additional genealogical detail or other factual details that might further inform someone's study of this family. Sometimes valuable clues can be found in unexpected places. Here is the first portion of the reported North Carolina Supreme Court decision: "The defendant was convicted at Burke, on the last Circuit, before his Honor Judge SETTLE, upon the following indictment" 'The jurors for the state upon their oaths present, that Solomon Roper, late of said county, on the first day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundres and thirty-three, with force and arms in said county, being an evil disposed person, and contriving and intending to debauch and corrupt the morals of the citizens of said county, on a certain public highway in said county, did indecently and scandalously expose to public view the private parts of him the said ROPER, to the evil and pernicious example of all others in like case offending, and against the peace and dignity of the state.' After his conviction, the defendant's counsel moved in arrest of judgment, 'that the bill of indictment was defective, in not charging that the offense was committed in the presence of one or more good citizens then and there assembled.' His Honor overruled the motion, and pronounced judgment, from which the defendant appealed. No counsel appeared for the defendant. The Attorney-General, for the state. GASTON, Judge, after stating the case, proceeded: -- We consider it a clear proposition, that every act which openly outrages decency, and tends to the corruption of the public morals, is a misdemeanor at common law. A public exposure of teh anked person, is among the most offensive of those outrages on decency and public morality. It is not necessary to the constitution of the criminal act, that the disgusting exhibition should have been actually seen by the public; it is enough, if the circumstances under which it was obtruded were such as to render it probable that it would be publicly seen; thereby endangering a shock to modest feeling, and manifesting a contempt for the laws of decency. In the description of every indictable offense, it is always advisable that the charge should be made to conform to approved precedents. A departure from them is viewed with suspicion. Yet where there are no precise technical expressions and terms of art required, so appropriated by the law to the description of an offense as not t! o admit a substitute for them, it is sufficient that the indictment charges in intelligible language, with distinctness and certainty, all the substantial circumstances which constitute the offense. ..." The full decision in this case is available online at the Google Books website: http://books.google.com/books?id=cqsDAAAAYAAJ&dq=Roper Burke "North Carolina"&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q=&f=false * * * * * As explained above, the cited primary record is long on scandal and short on facts, particularly of a genealogical nature. But its mere existence suggests the possible availablility of one or more other primary records that might contain other useful details, whether a trial court or appellate record, of record of fines or incarceration. Those seeking to better understand this ROPER family should probably take a look to see whether the extant records from this criminal case can further inform an understanding of the family history! Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>