State v. Godwin

• Decision Date: 21 March 1905
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. GODWIN.

138 N.C. 582

50 S.E. 277

STATE.

v.GODWIN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 21, 1905.

LANDLORD AND TENANT—INJURY TO HOUSE— CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF TENANT—TRIAL—ISSUE — OWNERSHIP OF HOUSE — INSENSIBLE VERDICT—POWER OF COURT.

1. On a prosecution under Code, § 1761, making it unlawful for a tenant to injure a tenement house of his landlord, though the evidence was conflicting as to whether defendant entered the house as the tenant of the owner of the land, or of a person who had bought the personal property of a mill of which the house was a part, the title to the house was not involved.

2. Before a verdict returned into open court by a jury is complete, it must be accepted by the court for record.

3. The court has power at any time while the jury are before it or under its control to require the amendment of a verdict in form so as to meet the requirements of the law.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, §§ 2110-2114.]

4. A verdict of "guilty, but innocently, " is insensible, and does not entitle the defendant to an acquittal, as the equivalent of a verdict of not guilty.

5. Where the jury in a criminal case returned, and, in response to the question of the clerk if they had agreed, said, "Yes; guilty, but innocently." the court, in directing the jury to retire and return a verdict of guilty or not guilty, as they should find from the evidence and the law given them, was acting within its authority.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lenoir County; Ferguson, Judge.

Elijah Godwin was convicted of injury to a tenement house in violation of Code, § 1761, and he appeals. Affirmed.

N. J. Rouse and W. D. Pollock, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, J. There was evidence tending to show that one Alexander Tilghman was the owner of the land, and had sold thetimber to Charles Riley & Co., with the privilege of building tramroads, sawmills, etc., necessary and incidental to cutting, hauling, and manufacturing lumber, and that Riley & Co., through Hines Bros., contracted with J. H. Hines to cut, haul, saw, and remove said timber; that said Hines, with the permission of said Tilghman, went on the land, and located the mill, and constructed buildings for the purpose of said work, and, among others, the building described in the indictment, which was used as a dwelling for the employes while operating the mill, being constructed out of the lumber sawed at the mill; that the mill and property were sold at a mortgage sale to one Seth West, but not the land. There was evidence tending to prove that defendant rented the house from Tiighman, and entered as his tenant. There was also controverting evidence tending to prove that the defendant entered as tenant of West. There was evidence tending to prove that the defendant removed two windows which fastened into the house, without the permission of Tiighman, but with the permission of West, and that such removal was an injury to the house.

1. The defendant requested the court to charge that, according to the evidence, the house did not belong to Tiighman, and that the jury should return a verdict of not guilty. Refused, and defendant excepted. The court instructed the jury that if they should be fully satisfied from the evidence that Tiighman was the owner of the land, and that the defendant entered into the house as the tenant of Tiighman, and willfully, without any bona fide claim of right, removed the wiudows, and such removal injured the house, they would return a verdict of guilty. To this charge, defendant excepted. The court further charged the jury that if they should find from the evidence that the defendant entered as the tenant of West, and at the time he removed the windows he believed, in good faith, he had a right to do so, they would return a verdict of not guilty. We see no...