Lawson v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1894 |
| Citation | 100 Ala. 7,14 So. 870 |
| Parties | LAWSON ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Pike county; William H. Parks, Judge.
James Lawson and others were convicted of trespassing on land of Dennis Ramsey after having been warned not to do so, and appeal. Affirmed.
Issue having been joined on the plea of not guilty, the state introduced as a witness Dennis Ramsey, who testified that he took possession of the land in section 19, township 11, range 20, six years before the trial (October, 1893), and built houses and cleared and fenced a field containing about 25 acres; that in the month of February, 1893, while he was in possession of said field, he warned the defendants not to enter thereon, but that thereafter, before the commencement of this prosecution, the defendants did trespass upon the said field. On cross-examination this witness testified that his house was on the N.E. 1/4 of said section 19, and the land upon which the defendant entered after warning was on the N.W. 1/4 of said section; that he had no title to the land in said N.W. 1/4 of said section, "more than that he was in possession of the 15 acres in dispute." He further testified that both quarter sections were known as the Mobile & Girard Railroad lands, and that under an act of congress they were forfeited to the government, and that he was proceeding in the land department in Montgomery to homestead the N.E. 1/4 of said section; "that before said warning was given, and after the said 25-acre field was cleared, the county surveyor had run the line between the two said quarter sections, and cut off about 15 acres of said field, which placed it in the said N.W. 1/4." The defendants introduced as a witness one Linson Lawson, who testified that he was the father of the defendants, who were minors, and who were working under him at the time of the alleged trespass; that he was living on the N.W. 1/4 of section 19 at the time of the alleged trespass, took possession of the same four or five years previously, and was living there when said Ramsey fenced in the 25 acres; that the line between the two quarter sections was run by the county surveyor, at his instance, after notice to said Ramsey; that at the time of said survey, and before the warning, he had made application to homestead the said N.W 1/4, as provided by an act of congress. He thereupon offered to introduce a certificate of a homestead entry, signed by the register in the land office at Montgomery, but on objection by the state the court refused to allow said certificate to be introduced in evidence, and the defendants duly excepted. On motion of the state, the court excluded all of the testimony of said Linson Lawson in reference to his claim to the 15 acres upon which the trespass is alleged to have been made, and to this ruling the defendants duly excepted.
M. N Carlisle, for appellants.
Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a prosecution for trespass after warning, under section 3874 of the Code. [1] The evidence is free from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strickland v. State
... ... the lands of another is a misdemeanor. Section 4727, Rev ... Code 1928. Nor is a criminal intent necessary to constitute ... the trespass. The only intent required is to do the act ... itself. State v. Turner, 60 Conn. 222, 22 ... A. 542; Knight v. State, 64 Miss. 802, 2 ... So. 252; Lawson v. State, 100 Ala. 7, 14 ... So. 870; State v. Green, 35 S.C. 266, 14 ... S.E. 619 ... We ... conclude, therefore, that a bona fide belief in the ... legality of his possession does not justify an intruder in ... resistance by force of an attempt of the rightful possessor ... to ... ...
-
Rhodes v. McWilson
... ... time of the warning and of the entry in the actual possession ... of the premises. Lawson v. State, 100 Ala. 7, 14 So ... 870; Wright v. State, 136 Ala. 139, 34 So. 233. But ... that principle can have no application to the facts of ... ...
-
Wright v. State
...defendant, it is no defense that the defendant had the superior title. Charges 2 and 3 were, therefore, properly refused. Lawson v. State, 100 Ala. 7, 14 So. 870. being evidence of the guilt of the defendant, charge 4, which was the general affirmative charge, was properly refused. If, afte......
-
Burks v. State
...that the prosecutor was in actual possession, claiming under his lease from Mrs. Walker. The case is similar to that of Lawson v. State, 100 Ala. 7, 14 So. 870, where was held that, if the prosecutor was in actual possession of the land trespassed upon, it is no defense that the defendant h......