State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 24 February 1890
• Citation: 10 S.E. 901,106 N.C. 646
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: State v. Williams.

10 S.E. 901

(106 N.C. 646)

State

v.Williams.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 24, 1890.

Landlord and Tenant—Removal of Crop—Misdemeanor.

Under Code N. C. § 1759, which provides that any tenant who removes a crop, or part thereof, from the land without the consent of, or five days' notice to, his landlord, and before satisfying all the liens of the landlord on such crop, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, a tenant is guilty who, before his rent is paid, removes cotton from the leased premises without the landlord's knowledge or consent, though it be for the purpose of storing and preserving such cotton, for which no means exist on the leased premises.

Appeal from superior court, Wilson county; Akmfiei.d, Judge.

Batchelordt Devereux, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

Merrimon, C. J. The defendant is Indicted, as tenant of the prosecutor, for removing part of the crop from the land, in violation of the statute, (Code, § 1759.) He pleaded not guilty, and on the trial testified in his own behalf as follows-" The contract between the prosecutor and myself was for fifty acres of land—ten in corn, forty in cotton—to be cultivated by me on halves. Nothing was said as to how the crop was to be divided. We picked out 202 pounds of cotton, and carried it to the gin-house, and kept it to itself. The prosecutor then notified me not to move any more until I paid my store account. I got the money, and offered to pay him all but $7.50, which I refused to pay. There was no house on the rented premises to store the cotton in. I moved one load of the cotton, after I had picked it out, off the premises, to my own gin-house, without notice to the landlord. I moved it off for the purpose of sheltering it until it could be divided, and kept it separate from the other cotton. My purpose in moving it was not to deprive the landlord of his rent. The landlord took the cotton under claim and delivery, and got his rent out of it." The court instructed the jury that, if the evidence of the defendant thus given was true, then he was guilty. The defendant excepted. There was a verdict of guilty, and judgment thereupon, from which he appealed.

The statute (Code, § 1759) under which the defendant is indicted prescribes that "anys lesee or cropper, or the assigns of either, or any other person, who shall remove said crop, or any part thereof, from such land without the consent of the lessor or his assigns, and without giving him or his agent five days' notice of such intended removal, and before satisfying all the liens held by the lessor or his assigns on said crop, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and if any landlord shall unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and without process of law, and unjustly, seize the crop of his tenant, when there is nothing due him, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." The obvious purpose of this very stringent statutory provision is twofold:

First, inasmuch as the crops raised on the land are ordinarily in the actual possession of the tenant, but by statute (Code, § 1754) "shall be deemed and held to be vested in possession of the lessor or his assigns at all times until the rents for said lands shall be paid, " etc., the purpose is to protect the landlord and his assigns against the tenant and his assigns, and...