State v. Jones

• Decision Date: 31 December 1837
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. JOHN JONES.

19 N.C. 544

STATE

v.JOHN JONES.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

DECEMBER TERM, 1837.

Where one got staves upon the land of another upon a contract to have half for getting them, it was Held, that while they remained on the land undivided, the manufacturer was neither a tenant in common with the owner of the land, nor a bailee of them; and that, therefore, he, or any other person with his connivance, might be guilty of larceny in taking them.

This was an indictment for petit larceny, tried at Gates on the last Circuit, before Pearson, J.

It was in proof, on the trial, that Hardy Jones, a brother of

the defendant, had agreed with one Jenkins, to get staves upon the lands of Jenkins, upon shares; that is, Jones was to have one half of the staves for getting them. Under this agreement, Jones set a negro to work, and after he had got out about three hundred staves, the defendant and his brother Hardy carried off about two hundred of them secretly, and without the privity or consent of Jenkins, and sold them.

His Honor charged the jury, that if the defendant, in company with his brother Hardy, carried off the staves secretly, without the privity or consent of Jenkins, with an intent to defraud Jenkins, and convert the staves to his own use, he was guilty of larceny. The defendant was found guilty, whereupon his counsel moved for a new trial for error in the charge, insisting that Hardy Jones had such an interest in the staves as gave him a right to take them; and that although it was a fraud upon Jenkins, it was not larceny. The motion was overruled; and the defendant appealed.

DANIEL, Judge: The defendant contends, first, that his brother Hardy Jones, was a tenant in common of the staves with Jenkins; and that, as his brother was with him at the time the staves were taken and carried away, and assented to the act, it was not, in law, a larceny. The question for the decision of the Court is, was Hardy Jones a tenant in common with Jenkins in the staves ? Jenkins was the sole owner of the land on which the timber trees grew that furnished the entire materials out of which the staves were manufactured. Hardy Jones did not lease the land, but he agreed with Jenkins to go on his land, and there, by himself or servants, to labour in making staves; and was to have one-half of the staves manufactured, instead of cash, in payment of his work and labour. We so understand the case. The language is, "Hardy Jones agreed with one Jenkins to get staves upon the land of...