Sandy v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Prom the Circuit Court of Sumter. Tried before the Hon. Luther B. Smith. The policy and purpose of the law, under which this prosecution was instituted, using the words dwelling-house and premises in juxtaposition, was to protect the immediate surroundings of the dwelling; and the statute can not be extended to uncultivated lands beyond the view of the residence, and more than a mile distant from it; especially when it was not shown that the defendant knew that the lands…
Read the full summary
Prom the Circuit Court of Sumter. Tried before the Hon. Luther B. Smith. The policy and purpose of the law, under which this prosecution was instituted, using the words dwelling-house and premises in juxtaposition, was to protect the immediate surroundings of the dwelling; and the statute can not be extended to uncultivated lands beyond the view of the residence, and more than a mile distant from it; especially when it was not shown that the defendant knew that the lands belonged to the prosecutor, or that they were included in the prohibition. The meaning of the word premises is commented on…
1Opinion of the CourtBrickell, C. J.
The statute under which the indictment is found reads as follows : “Any person who, without legal cause, or good excuse, enters into the dwelling-house, or on the premises of another, after having been warned, within six months preceding, not to do so, is guilty of a misdemeanor,” &c. — Code of 1876, § 4419. The evidence tended to show that, after warning, the defendant was seen in the pasture of the prosecutor, which was inclosed, but not cultivated, and was a mile, or a mile and a half, from the prosecutor’s dwelling-house. The instruction of the court to the jury was, that the pasture was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wright v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
- Bohannon v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Valentine v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1923
- Lanterman v. NestorWashington Supreme Court · 1927