State v. Whitehurst
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Citation | 70 N.C. 85 |
| Parties | STATE v. BENJ. N. WHITEHURST. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
An indictment under the act of 1866, chap. 60, in which it is charged, that the defendant did unlawfully enter upon the premises of the prosecutors, he, the said defendant, having been forbidden to enter on said premises, and not having a license so to enter, &c., is sufficient.
CRIMINAL ACTION, (Misdemeanor, Bat. Rev. chap. 32, sec. 116,) tried before his Honor, Judge Moore, at the Fall Term, 1873, of PITT Superior Court.
The defendant was brought to answer the following indictment:
On the trial, the counsel for defendant, moved to quash the indictment for the following reasons:
1st. For that, it does not aver that the defendant had no bona fide claim of right to the said lands: and
2d. The indictment did not aver that Edward C. Yellowly, one of the owners of the land, had forbidden the defendant so to enter.
Upon the first point, his Honor being of opinion, that the entry of the defendant might be unlawful, i. e., a civil trespass, yet made under a mistaken claim of right; and therefore, the indictment should have negatived the claim of right.
Upon the second point, his Honor being also of opinion with defendant, ordered the indictment to be quashed, and the defendant to go without day.
From this judgment, the Solicitor prayed an appeal; appeal granted.
Hargrove, Atto. General, for the State .
No counsel in this Court, for defendant.
“No person, after being forbidden to do so, shall enter on the premises of another without a license therefor; and if any person after being thus forbidden, shall so enter, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.” Acts 1866, ch. 60.
There is a further clause which declares that if any person not being the present owner or bona fide claimant of such premises shall wilfully and unlawfully enter thereon, and carry off, any wood, &c., he shall, if the act be done with felonious intent, be deemed guilty of larceny, &c.
And there is a proviso, by which a person may obtain a license to make search on the premises of another, for his estrays.
The defendant stands charged under the first clause of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Baker
...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 Ellen, 68 N.C. 281; State v. Hanks, 66 N.C. 612. The assignments of error of the defendant based upon the refusal of the trial ......
-
State v. Cooke
...Baker, 231 N.C. 136, 56 S.E.2d 424; State v. Faggart, 170 N.C. 737, 86 S.E. 31; State v. Yellowday, 152 N.C. 793, 67 S.E. 480; State v. Whitehurst, 70 N.C. 85. Where an interference with the possession of property is a crime, it is necessary to allege in the warrant or bill of indictment th......
-
State v. Yellowday
...said has fully answered the objection which has been made to the affidavit and warrant. We will refer, though, to the case of State v. Whitehurst, 70 N.C. 85, seems to hold that such an averment in the affidavit upon which the warrant issued for unlawful trespass on land is not necessary. I......
- State v. Bobbitt