State v. Fisher

Citation109 N.C. 817,13 S.E. 878
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decision Date17 November 1891
PartiesState . v. Fisher.

Trespass on Land—Criminal Liability.

A person who in good faith, believing that he has a right to do so, enters upon the lands of another after he had been forbidden, when he had no reasonable ground for such belief, is not excused from criminal liability under Code N. C. § 1120, which provides that, "if any person, after being forbidden to do so, shall go or enter upon the lands of another without a license therefor, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. "

Appeal from superior court, Rowan county; Jesse F. Graves, Judge.

William Fisher was duly charged criminally in the court of a justice of the peace with having violated the statute, (Code, § 1120,) in that, after the prosecutor forbade him to go upon his land, he went upon the same, and hauled across the same cross-ties, without a license so to do. He was convicted in that court, and upon appeal he was afterwards likewise convicted in the superior court, upon the plea of not guilty. Thereupon he excepted, and appealed to this court. Affirmed.

The Attorney General, for the State.

Merrimon. C. J., (after stating the facts.) The defendant insisted that he went upon the prosecutor's land in good faith, believing and claiming that he had the right to do so as the agent of a railroad company named, and therefore he was not guilty. The court held otherwise, and this is assigned as error. Unquestionably the railroad company had not the shadow of right to go upon the prosecutor's land and transport its cross-ties over the same, and no authority whatever to direct or authorize its agent or servant to do so. The statute (Code, § 1120) expressly provides that, "if any person, after being forbidden to do so, shall go or enter upon the lands of another without a license therefor, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, " etc. The defendant is presumed to have knowledge of this statute, and the mere fact that he may have believed honestly that he had the right to go upon the prosecutor's land, after he was forbidden to do so, as agent of the railroad company, as the evidence went to prove he did, could not at all excuse him from criminal liability, unless he had reasonable ground for such belief; and there was no evidence from which the jury might so find. State v. Crawley, 103 N. C. 353, 9 S. E. Rep. 409. The court properly instructed the jury, in substance, that if they Delieved the evidence the defendant was guilty. State v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Cooke
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 4, 1958
    ......490] 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 establish facts sufficient to excuse his wrongful conduct. State v. Durham, 121 N.C. 546, 28 N.E. 22; State v. Wells, supra. There was nothing in the State's evidence showing or tending to show any right on the part of defendants ......
  • State v. Avent, 654
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 20, 1961
    ...... State v. Clyburn, supra; State v. Fisher, 109 N.C. 817, 13 S.E. 878. This Court said in State v. Crawley, 103 N.C. 353, 9 S.E. 409, which was a criminal action for entry upon land after being forbidden: 'A mere belief on his part that he had such claim would not be sufficient; he was bound to prove that he had reasonable ground for such ......
  • State v. Clyburn, 650
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 10, 1958
    ......§ 14-126. An entry under 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. 579.         What is the meaning of the word 'enter' as used in the statute defining a criminal trespass? The word is used in G.S. § 14-126 as well as G.S. § 14-134. One statute relates to an entry with force; the other to a peaceful ......
  • State v. Baker
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • November 23, 1949
    ...... to enter; and (2) that he had reasonable grounds for such. belief. State v. Faggart, supra; State v. Wells, supra;. 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. [231 N.C. 141] Fisher, 109. N.C. 817, 13 S.E. 878; State v. Crawley, 103 N.C. 353, 9 S.E. 409; State v. Lawson, 101 N.C. 717, 7. S.E. 905, 9 Am.St.Rep. 42; State v. Winslow, 95 N.C. 649; State v. Bryson, 81 N.C. 595; State v. Crosset, 81 N.C. 579; State v. Hause, 71 N.C. 518; State v. Whitehurst, 70 N.C. 85; State ......
  • 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