State v. Crowder
| Citation | 1 S.E. 690,97 N.C. 432 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1887 |
| Parties | State v. Crowder. |
Landlord and Tenant—Removal of Crops—Notice—Criminal Law.
Under Code N. C. § 1759, making it a misdemeanor for a lessee or other person to remove a crop "without the consent of the lessor or his assigns, and without giving him or his agent five days' notice of such intended removal, and before satisfying all the liens held by the lessor or his assigns, " the omission of the five-days' notice is an essential element of the offense, and an instruction that "defendant must pay for rent and supplies, and give the five-days' notice; if he failed to do either, he would be guilty, "—is error.
Appeal from superior court, Anson county.
The Attorney General, for the State.
No counsel for defendant.
The statute (Code, § 1759) in respect to "landlord and tenant" provides that "any lessee or cropper, or the assigns of either or any other person who shall remove said crop, or any part thereof, from such land, without the consent of the lessor or his assigns, and without giving him or his agent five days' notice of such intended removal, and before satisfying all the liens held by the lessor or his assigns on said crop, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and if any landlord shall unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and without process of law, and unjustly, seize the crop of his tenant when there is nothing due him, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
The offense thus prohibited is not complete unless the lessee or cropper, or the assigns of either, or other person, remove the crop, or a part of it, without giving the lessor or his assign five days' notice of such intended removal; and this essential fact must constitute part of the charge in the indictment. The statute plainly so provides. It is not simply such removal without the consent of the lessor or his assigns, and before satisfying all liens on the crop held by them, that constitutes the offense; this is not the offense prohibited; but it is this, done without giving five days' notice to the lessor or his assign or his agent, that constitutes it. The purpose is to make it indictable to thus remove the crop, or any part of it, without notice to the lessor or his assigns, and thus deprive him of just opportunity to enforce his lien, and to that end take such steps as need be taken to prevent such removal. If the notice is given, and the lessor or his assign fails to enforce his lien, and to take steps to prevent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Connor
...must be made good by proof, and, being part of the crime, must be proved by the state and beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Crowder, 97 N. C. 432, 1 S. E. 690; State v. Wilbourne, 87 N. C. 529. The correct doctrine as to the rule and the exceptions to it is well stated In Archbold's Crimi......
-
State v. Connor
...must be made good by proof, and, being part of the crime, must be proved by the state and beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Crowder, 97 N.C. 432, 1 S.E. 690; State v. Wilbourne, 87 N.C. 529. The doctrine as to the rule and the exceptions to it is well stated in Archbold's Criminal Pleadin......
- State v. Bell
-
State v. Johnson
...as a general rule must be proved, and that beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Connor, 142 N. C. 700, 55 S. E. 787, supra; State v. Crowder, 97 N. C. 432, 1 S. E. 690; State v. Wllbourne, 87 N. C. 529. True, it is recognized that in certain instances, when a statute creates a distinct and s......