State v. McDaniel
| Decision Date | 31 December 1860 |
| Citation | 8 Jones 284,53 N.C. 284 |
| Parties | STATE v. A. P. McDANIEL. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
A road only one mile long, and from ten to fifteen feet wide, leading from a public highway to a church, and used by the people of the neighborhood for sixty years in going to and from the church, and which connected with a country road leading to a mill in the neighborhood, and to a railroad station, but which had never been under the charge of an overseer, nor worked as a public highway, is not a public highway so as to subject one to indictment for obstructing it.
This was an INDICTMENT against the defendant for obstructing a public highway, tried before SAUNDERS, J., at Fall Term, 1860, of Guilford Superior Court.
The following is a special verdict found by the jury in the case.
The Court being of opinion with the defendant, gave judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the State appealed to this Court.
Attorney General, for the State .
No counsel appeared for the defendant in this Court.
The special verdict in this case presents the enquiry, whether mere use of a way or road by the people of a neighborhood for a long lapse of time, to go to church and other neighboring places, is a public road. The road does not appear to have been laid off agreeably to the provisions of our statute law; it is not of the width prescribed for our highways, and it has not been treated as a highway by the appointment of an overseer with laborers to keep it in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. Slick, 111PA83
...bearing on the question of adverse use by the public of the roadway claimed. See, e.g., Boyden v. Achenbach, 79 N.C. 539; State v. McDaniel, 53 N.C. 284 (1860); and Davis v. Ramsey, 50 N.C. 236 In the year 1882, however, the court made two seemingly conflicting statements with regard to the......
-
State v. Haynie
...have exerted control, and for the reparation of which they are responsible." State v. Purify, supra (by Ruffin, J.), citing State v. McDaniel, 53 N.C. 284, Boyden v. Achenbach, supra. The proof in this case is that the public authorities had never exercised any control over this way, and th......
-
State Highway Commission v. Batts, 286
...of public resort, and it is held that a cul de sac may be a public highway, although, of course, it is not necessarily one.' In State v. McDaniel, 53 N.C. 284, defendant was placed on trial on an indictment for obstructing a public highway. The jury found a special verdict. The trial court ......
-
Hoggard v. Mitchell
... ... position taken from 2 Thompson on Trials, § 2407, is ... recognized as sound and just in reference to criminal causes ... in State v. Exum, 138 N.C. 599-619, 50 S.E. 283, and ... as to civil suits in Kornegay v. Railroad, 154 N.C ... 389, 70 S.E. 731, has been again and ... Williams, 87 N.C ... 6; Boyden v. Achenbach, 86 N.C. 397; Id., 79 N.C ... 539; Crump v. Mims, 64 N.C. 767; State v ... McDaniel, 53 N.C. 284 ... In some ... of the later cases on the subject it is recognized that the ... existence of a public way may not ... ...