State v. Buckner
| Decision Date | 31 January 1868 |
| Citation | 98 Am.Dec. 83,61 N.C. 558 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. J. A. BUCKNER, ROBERT BUCKNER and MORGAN BUCKNER. |
*1 In an indictment for Forcible Trespass it is sufficient to charge, that the defendant entered the premises with a strong hand the prosecutor being then and there present.
Where the land on both sides of a road, whether public or private, belongs to the prosecutor, he is the owner of the soil over which the road runs; and persons who stop upon such road, and use violent and menacing language to him, are guilty of Forcible Trespass.
The only privilege which the public have in a public road is that of passing over it, and those who abuse that privilege become trespassers ab initio, and create a nuisance.
FORCIBLE TRESPASS, tried before Buxton J., at Fall Term 1867 of the Superior Court of BUNCOMBE.
The indictment charged that the defendants “with force and arms in and upon a certain piece of land of A. G. Anderson, (the prosecutor) situate in said county, unlawfully, violently, forcibly, injuriously, and with a strong hand did enter, the said A. G. Anderson being then and there present upon the said land” &c., “to the great damage of the said A. G. Anderson and against the peace and dignity of the State.”
Upon the trial it appeared that the defendants had entered a lane which ran in front of the prosecutor's house, and had gone to a gate which opened into his yard at a distance of some forty feet from the front of the house, and there called to him in abusive and threatening language, ordering him to come out, to leave the country, &c. During this time Anderson was in the (front) porch of his house; one of the defendants had in his hand a rock, another a stick and cowhide, and the third had a pistol.
Under the instructions of the court the jury returned a verdict for the State; and, motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment having been overruled, there was judgment, and appeal.
Merrimon, for the appellant .
Atto. Gen., contra.
READE J.
The indictment charges that the defendant entered the premises with a strong hand the prosecutor being then and there present. That is a sufficient charging of the forcible trespass.
The question remains whether the facts proved sustain the charge.
There were three of the defendants. They were armed with a rock, a stick, a cowhide and a pistol. They were violent in manner and threatening in language, demanding of the prosecutor to come out and take a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v. Gilbert
...manus does not apply to a case like this, where the trespasser, armed with a pistol, is acting in such belligerent defiance. See State v. Buckner, 61 N.C. 558 . defendant used language which was calculated and intended to bring on a fight, and a fight ensued. He is guilty. State v. Perry, 5......
-
Bishop v. Hawley
...of a driveway for stock is a statutory remedy, and not a common law right; 2987 C. S. the claim for damages is remote; State v. Buckner, 98 Am. Dec. 83; 100, Laws 1921 limited the establishment of highways across the public domain, at any rate, until the County Commissioners have complied w......
-
Hart v. Jones
... ... Watrous v. Steel, 4 Vt. 629, 24 Am.Dec. [14 Ala.App ... 330] 648; Wilkerson v. State, 68 So. 475; ... Hendrix v. State, 50 Ala. 148; Ward v ... State, 28 Ala. 53 ... This ... defense is in justification, and, to be ... of vending his wares, became a trespasser, as some ... authorities hold (State v. Buckner, 61 N.C. 558, 98 ... Am.Dec. 83; Huffman v. State, 21 Ind.App. 450; ... Adams v. Rivers, 11 Barb. [ N.Y.] 390; McDonald ... v. Newark, 42 N.J.Eq ... ...
-
Macdonough Point Corporation v. C. C. Field
... ... Chase, the incident ... having happened on plaintiff's land, would make him ... liable in an action of trespass, see State v ... Buckner, 61 N.C. 558, 98 Am. Dec. 83; Adams ... v. Rivers, 11 Barb. 390; 13 R. C. L. 126, we do not ... consider since plaintiff has not ... ...