Arrington v. State

• Decision Date: 01 June 1910
• Citation: 168 Ala. 143,52 So. 928
• Parties: ARRINGTON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

52 So. 928

168 Ala. 143

ARRINGTON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 1, 1910

Appeal from Montgomery City Court; Armstead Brown, Judge.

Fib Arrington was convicted of trespass after warning, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The evidence for the state tended to show that one C. E. Johns was a rider or overseer, whose duty it was to superintend the work of the laborers and renters on the plantation of W. B Bell, and that he rented the premises in question from the agent of Mr. Arrington, signing the rent notes in his own name, and saying nothing about Mr. Bell at the time of the renting. Mr. Bell then rented the same premises to Sid Palmer, Sr., and put him in possession of the land under a contract whereby Bell furnished the land and the team and Palmer the labor, with an agreement to divide the crops equally. It seems that the only warning shown to have been given the defendant to stay off the land was that given by C E. Johns. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Arrington & Houghton, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ANDERSON J.

The proof shows that Bell furnished the land and team and Palmer cultivated the land on shares. This created the relation of employer and employé, not of landlord and tenant or as tenants in common. Section 4743 of the Code of 1907; Jordan v. Lindsay, 132 Ala. 567, 31 So. 484; Maddox v. State, 122 Ala. 110, 26 So. 305. The premises were properly set out in Bell.

The proof did not show that Johns was a general agent, and it was incumbent upon the state to show that he had authority to warn trespassers to keep off the land. Nor do we think that authority to do this could be inferred from the fact that Johns was "just a rider and saw that the negroes worked." There was no proof that he had the control and management of the land. The defendant was therefore entitled to the general charge upon this theory. Assuming, however that authority can be shown, we will discuss so much of the rulings upon the evidence as may operate as a guide upon the next trial.

The fact that the defendant asserted a claim to the land in the conversation with Palmer, and said he was going to get the land back, was a circumstance for the jury to determine whether or not he went upon the land after warning. It is true, these were things said in the conversation, which were not relevant or material, and which were calculated to prejudice the defendant with the jury; but the motion to exclude went to the whole conversation and did not separate the bad from the good, and the trial court will...