State v. Long
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 78 N.C. 571 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. DRURY LONG and others. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for Removing Crops tried at Spring Term, 1877, of GUILFORD Superior Court, before Cox, J.
The defendants, Drury Long, D. C. Long, Stephen Hussey, Linville Wood and John W. Wood, were charged with removing certain crops in violation of the statute. The facts touching the point decided by this Court sufficiently appear in the opinion delivered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Verdict of Guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendants.
Attorney General, for the State .
Messrs Scott & Caldwell, J. A. Gilmer and Thos, Ruffin for defendants .
This indictment seems to have been drawn under Bat. Rev. ch. 64 § 15, against Drury Long,--tenant and lessee of land, the rent of which was to be a share of the crop,--for removing the crop grown on the land without the lessor's consent and without the notice prescribed in the statute, and against the other defendants,--as acting under the license of Long and aiding and abetting in the unlawful act. The bill was found by the grand jury at December Term, 1876, of Guilford Superior Court, and tried at March Term, following. The defendant, J. W. Wood, was acquitted and the other defendants found guilty; and from the judgment rendered against them, they appealed to this Court.
The section referred to in Battle's Revisal, as also the two sections immediately preceding, were amended, and others substituted in their place by an Act of the General Assembly, ratified on the 19th of March, 1875, Laws 1874-'5, ch. 209. Subsequently another Act was passed, which was ratified and took effect on the 12th of March, 1877, (Laws 1876-'77 ch. 283) the 8th section of which in express terms repeals § § 13, 14, 15, ch. 64. Bat. Rev. and ch. 209, of the Acts of 1874-'75, and makes (§ 6) the removal of the crop or any part of it from the land on which it is grown, without payment of rent, without the lessor's consent, and without his having five days notice of the intended removal, a misdemeanor. These enactments seem to have escaped the attention of the Solicitor.
It is well settled that the repeal of a statute pending a prosecution for an offence created under it, arrests the proceeding and withdraws all authority to pronounce judgment even after conviction; and it is equally clear that no aid can be derived from the last enactment which is necessarily prospective only in its operation, and under the Constitution cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Perkins
...and judgment of the courts shall be based upon exist ing law. State v. Cress, 49 N. C. 421; State v. Nutt 61 N. C. 20; State v. Long, 78 N. C. 571; State v. Massey, 103 N. C. 356, 9 S. E. 632, 4 L. R. A. 308; State v. Biggers, 108 N. C. 760, 12 S. E. 1024; 26 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 755. T......
-
State v. Perkins
...the decision and judgment of the courts shall be based upon existing law. State v. Cress, 49 N.C. 421; State v. Nutt, 61 N.C. 20; State v. Long, 78 N.C. 571; State Massey, 103 N.C. 356, 9 S.E. 632, 4 L. R. A. 308; State v. Biggers, 108 N.C. 760, 12 S.E. 1024; 26 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 755......
-
State v. Coley
...and leave the pre-existing law in force as to those previously committed. State v. Massey, 103 N.C. 356, 9 S.E. 632; State v. Long, 78 N.C. 571; State v. Williams, 97 N.C. 455, 2 S.E. 55; State v. Putney, Phil. 543. As the purpose that the act of 1893 should operate prospectively, and that ......
-
State v. Coley
...passage, and leave the pre-existing law in force as to those previously committed. State v. Massey, 103 N. C. 356, 9 S. E. 632; State v. Long, 78 N. C. 571; State v. Williams, 97 IV. C. 455, 2 S. E. 55; State v. Putney, Phil 543. As the purpose that the act of 1803.should operate prospectiv......