State v. Faggart

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
Citation170 N.C. 737,87 S.E. 31
Docket Number(No. 467.)
PartiesSTATE. v. FAGGART.
Decision Date01 December 1915

Appeal from Superior Court, Cabarrus County; Lane, Judge.

John Faggart was convicted of unlawful trespass upon land, and he appeals. New trial granted.

R. A. Barringer, witness for the state, testified:

"Some time during the fall of 1913, I rented a farm in No. 9 township belonging to me and Maud Barringer, my daughter-in-law, for the two years, 1914 and 1915: there were no buildings on the farm at the time I rented the place to John Faggart, and I agreed to build a house and barn on it for him, and did so. Faggart was to pay one-third of what he raised on the place as rent, and there was nothing specified as to what should be planted on any particular part of the land. He was to raise corn, cotton, and small grain, and work the land as he saw fit. He made a fairly good crop of com and cotton in 1914, and sowed down about 8 acres in oats and wheat in the fall of 1914, while he was still in possession of and living on the land and without objection on my part. The defendant never told me he was going to leave, but I heard some talk to that effect. The first time I knew that the defendant had moved away, was some time about January 20, 1915, when I went to the house and found it empty and the key in the door. I saw defendant some time after that and told him to stay off the place, and after that the defendant Faggart forbid me to go on that part of the land which he sowed in small grain. I sent him a written notice by my son, Jas. Barringer, forbidding him to cut the wheat and oats or to have any one else do so for him. On the 10th day of June. 1915, I went with several hands to this field to cut this grain and found the defendant and his wife and Henry Bost in the field cutting and binding the grain. Faggart and myself had some words about the crop, and he went off and left his wife and Mr. Bost there. I loaded up what he had cut and hauled it home. The defendant later cut the grain with my consent and I took out claim and delivery for it and had it thrashed and have it now. It made about 75 bushels of wheat and oats. After the defendant, John Faggart, moved away I worked about 20 acres in corn and cotton on the place which Faggart had rented."

John Faggart, defendant, testified: "I rented the place from R. A. Barringer for two years. 1914 and 1915, and was to give one-third of the crops raised by me on the land as rent. There was nothing said as to what I was to raise on the land—just a general crop. Mr. Barringer agreed, at the time he rented the land, to build a house on it for me to live in and a barn which was to be shedded in front and behind, and also agreed to make a good big pasture, ample for my cattle. Mr. Barringer built the house so it did very well, but not according to contract, and I made no complaint about the house; he put up the frame of a barn and weatherboarded it up a little above the joists and left it open from there up, except a few planks nailed around above, some distance apart, and did not build any shed at all, and on that account my wagon and someof my rough feed had to stay out in the weather and was damaged; and some of my feed that was put in the barn was damaged because the barn was not finished and shedded according to contract. Barringer fenced in 4 or 5 acres, mostly of old pine field, for a pasture, which was eaten out in a week or two by one cow, and I was forced to get pasture from other parties for my cattle, because Barringer did not make a pasture as he contracted to do. I made a fairly good crop of corn and cotton during 1914, and I sowed about 8 acres of wheat and oats in the fall. I expected to stay on and work the place the second year, and would have done so, if Mr. Barringer had complied with his contract and built the barn and pasture as he had agreed to do. I told Jas. Barringer, R. A. Barringer's son and Maud Barringer's husband, some time in December, 1914, before I rented another place, to tell his father if they didn't build a shed to the barn as they had promised that I was going to leave, for I could not stay there, unless I had some way to take care of my stuff. I moved away some time about January 20. 1915, and had not been back until about 10th of June, when I went back with hands to harvest the crop, etc. I had already forbidden Barringer to go on the land. I had no intention of abandonding my crop of wheat and oats and had not done so. I had sowed the crop and had done all to it that had been done, and when it got ripe I thought that I had a right to harvest the crop and get my part of it, and went there for that purpose. I moved away and didn't cultivate the land the second year, because Mr. Barringer did not do what he contracted to do about the barn and pasture, and I could not afford to stay there and have no pasture and no way or place to take care of my crop after I made it. I rented a place from Mr. Crawford Ross and moved there January 20, 1915, and worked a crop of cotton and corn this year on Mr. Ross' place."

Mrs. John Faggart testified:

"I am the wife of the defendant, and was present when the contract was made. Mr. Barringer agreed to build the house, to build and shed the barn, and to make a large pasture, enough for the cattle. We had two cows, and the pasture he made was not enough for one but a few weeks, and we had to get pasture from our neighbors most of the summer. We lost some feed, because Mr. Barringer never built the barn as he agreed to do. We left the place because Mr. Barringer did not fulfill his contract, and we could not afford to stay there another year without pasture for our cows and a place to house our feed. It was too hard on me to take our cows a half a mile away to somebody else's pasture, and besides he had agreed to furnish us plenty of pasture and didn't do it, and we did not want to stay unless he did."

Jas. Barringer, witness for the state, testified:

"I am the son of R. A. Barringer and the husband of Maud Barringer, who owned this land. I was not present when the contract was made, nor when my father and others went to the field to cut the grain. When I got to the field where they were, John Faggart was not there, but his wife and Mr. Bost were there. I delivered the notice or a similar one to the defendant. Notice forbidding the defendant to go on the land to cut the grain or to have any one do so, dated prior to June 10, 1915, with R. A. Barringer's name signed to it, was offered in evidence."

The court instructed the jury that if they believed the defendant's own evidence to return a verdict of guilty, he being guilty on his own statement There was a verdict of guilty, and from the judgment thereon, defendant appealed.

H. S. Williams, of Concord, for appellant.

The Attorney General and T. H. Calvert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER, J. (after stating the facts as above). [1] The statute under which this indictment was drawn has been the subject of much consideration by this court It was thought, until the decision in State v. Bryson, 81 N. C. 595, that the meaning of the Legislature was quite well understood, and that the law was enacted to keep off intruders or interlopers, and not to punish those who, in good faith and under a claim of right, had entered upon land....

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Cooke
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 4 de junho de 1958
    ...that they entered under a bona fide belief of a right to so enter, which belief had a reasonable foundation in fact. State v. Faggart, 170 N.C. 737, 87 S.E. 31; State v. Wells, 142 N.C. 590, 55 S.E. 210; State v. Fisher, 109 N.C. 817, 13 S.E. 878, but the burden is on the defendant to estab......
  • State v. Clayton
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 25 de novembro de 1959
    ...against him upon the same indictment, and he be tried upon it. 6 Mod., 261; 1 Sal. 21.' S[tate]. v. Smith, 129 N.C. 546 ; S[tate]. v. Faggart, 170 N.C. 737 (744) ; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 159 N.C., 265 [74 S.E. 740, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 1215].' It seems clear that this Court thought the Superior......
  • State v. Clyburn
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 10 de janeiro de 1958
    ...a bona fide claim of right avoids criminal responsibility under G.S. § 14-134 even though civil liability may remain. State v. Faggart, 170 N.C. 737, 87 S.E. 197; State v. Wells, 142 N.C. 590, 55 S.E. 210; State v. Fisher, 109 N.C. 817, 13 S.E. 878; State v. Crosset, 81 N.C. What is the mea......
  • State v. Baker
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 23 de novembro de 1949
    ...he must prove two things: (1) That he believed he had a right to enter; and (2) that he had reasonable grounds for such belief. State v. Faggart, supra; State v. Wells, State v. Durham, 121 N.C. 546, 28 S.E. 22; State v. Calloway, 119 N.C. 864, 26 S.E. 46; State v. Glenn, supra; State v. Fi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT