Black v. State
Tennessee Supreme Court
It is not competent for a defendant indicted for forcibly taking' property from the possession of another, to show title to the property taken, upon the trial oí the indictment. When two or more persons claim a negro, and she is in the possession of one of them, the other cannot take her by violence; if he do, he is liable to be indicted.
Read the full summary
It is not competent for a defendant indicted for forcibly taking' property from the possession of another, to show title to the property taken, upon the trial oí the indictment. When two or more persons claim a negro, and she is in the possession of one of them, the other cannot take her by violence; if he do, he is liable to be indicted. The charge in the hill of indictment is, that the plaintiffs, on the night of the 24th October, 1830, with force and arms, to wit, with clubs, knives, &c. did enter the dwelling house of the prosecutor, Marshall, he being then thereof possessed, and did then…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, J.
We are of opinion, the evidence offered was properly rejected. The circuit judge, in the charge to the jury, has given the proper reasons for it. With the charge of the court we accord. Men are not permitted to redress tfteir own wrongs, or to restore themselves to lost rights at their own will and pleasure; others have rights also. The process of the law and the courts, are open to them, and to these resort must he had, not to force and acts of violence. 2 Tenn. Rep. 97. It was supposed that the indictment did not show a possession of the house by Marshall, at the time of the entry; that is…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Elliott v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 1970