State v. Parrott
| Decision Date | 30 June 1874 |
| Citation | 71 N.C. 311,17 Am.Rep. 5 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. HENRY C. PARROTT and others. |
The defendants are guilty of no offence in tearing down a portion of the Railroad bridge over Neuse river below Kingston, when by so doing they were removing obstructions to the free navigation of that river.
( State v. Dibble, 4 Jones, 107, cited and approved.)
INDICTMENT for a trespass in tearing down a portion of a Railroad bridge, tried before Clarke, J., at the Spring Term, 1874, of LENOIR Superior Court.
On the trial in the Court below, the jury found the following special verdict:
“That the track of the Atlantic & N. C. Railroad Co., which company had been duly incorporated and organized under the laws of North Carolina, crossed the Neuse river a few miles below the town of Kinston, in the county of Lenoir, the said river being there a navigable stream. That at said place of crossing, and as a part of its track, the said company had erected a bridge across said river. That the defendants were owners, officers and employees of a steamboat of thirty-seven tons burden, running between the city of Newbern, a port on said river, and the town of Kinston aforesaid. That on the day named in the bill of indictment, the defendants' boat loaded with goods to be delivered at Kinston, reached the said bridge on her way from Newbern to Kinston, and finding it could not pass further up the stream without removing a part of the bridge, the defendants did remove a part thereof, thereby injuring and removing a portion of the track and rails as charged in the indictment; that said bridge had no draw in it, although by its charter the said company was required to have a draw in said bridge. That said company had been notified several months before that said boat would be placed on said river for navigation, and had been requested at the same time to place a draw in said bridge. That prior to the day named in the indictment, the said boat had passed the bridge eight times, the company taking up a span of the bridge each time to enable her to do so; that she was delayed each time several hours; that on the day named in the indictment the said company had no one present to remove the span and on that occasion the boat was delayed thirty hours.
That the owners of the boat then had license from the proper government officers at Norfolk to run the said boat between Newbern and Kinston; that the said railroad was a post road under the laws of the United States; that at the time of the removal of the bridge a number of the employees of the company were standing on the bridge, forbidding its removal, near the defendants, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Godwin
... ... powers vested in them by the town charter, if it constituted ... a nuisance, and there was evidence tending to show that the ... defendant himself also had the right to remove it, ... irrespective of the order to do so. Wolf v. Pearson, ... 114 N.C. 621, 19 S.E. 264; State v. Parrott, 71 N.C ... 311, 17 Am. Rep. 5; State v. Dibble, 49 N.C. 107. If ... the fence obstructed the street, which is a public highway, ... and thereby rendered its use less convenient, it was an ... indictable nuisance. State v. Whitaker, 66 N.C. 630; ... State v. McIver, 88 N.C. 686; State v ... ...
-
West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. People of the State of Illinois City of Chicago
...28 N. Y. 396, 84 Am. Dec. 351; Sage v. New York, 154 N. Y. 61, 38 L. R. A. 606, 61 Am. St. Rep. 592, 47 N. E. 1096; State v. Parrott, 71 N. C. 311, 17 Am. Rep. 5; State v. Dibble, 49 N. C. (4 Jones, L.) 107; Diedrich v. Northwestern Union R. Co. 42 Wis. 248, 24 Am. Rep. 399; Parmeter v. Gib......
-
State v. Baum
...the obstruction of a navigable stream is a public nuisance is well settled by reason and authority. State v. Dibble, 49 N.C. 107; State v. Parrott, 71 N.C. 311; State v. Island Club, supra; Wood, Nuis, §§ 478, 483, 484; Gould, Waters, §§ 91, 94, 140; Ang. Water Courses, §§ 554. As no error ......
-
Commissioners of Burke County v. Catawba Lumber Co.
... ... be its extent, is paramount to the private right of the ... riparian proprietor. State v. Narrows Island Club, ... 100 N.C. 481, 5 S.E. 411; State v. Glen, 7 Jones, ... 326, 327; Broadnax v. Baker, 94 N.C. 675; Gould, ... Waters ... generally a nuisance to obstruct it. Wood, Nuis. § 464; ... State v. Dibble, 4 Jones, 107; State v ... Parrott, 71 N.C. 311; 6 Lawson, Rights, Rem. & Prac. § ... 2936; State v. Harper, 71 N.C. 314; Lewis v ... Keeling, 1 Jones, 299; Hettrick v. Page, ... ...