State v. . Rose
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for misdemeanor tried at Fall Term, 1883, of Nash Superior Court, before Philips, J. The defendant is charged with a violation of the act of 1876- 77, ch. 283, §6 (Ttie Code, §1759), in removing crops.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for misdemeanor tried at Fall Term, 1883, of Nash Superior Court, before Philips, J. The defendant is charged with a violation of the act of 1876- 77, ch. 283, §6 (Ttie Code, §1759), in removing crops. The.indictment is substantially as follows: The jurors, &c., present that one Eli Leggett rented from W. H. Rose (the defendant) certain land for agricultural purposes, and that Rose, for a valuable consideration, conveyed his interest in the crop and in the rent of the land to the Rocky Mount Mills; and that afterwards, the said Rose did unlawfully and wilfully remove from said land…
1Opinion of the Court
Mérrimos, J.
The Attorney-General very properly conceded that this case must be governed by that of State v. Merritt, 89 N. C., 506, which is substantially like this. Here, there are two counts in the indictment, and in each it is charged that the •seed-cotton was removed by the defendant “without satisfying <dl Kens on said crops.” The language here quoted from the indictment is not that of the act (The Code, §1759), nor does it embody the substance of it.
The act provides, “ and before satisfying all the liens held by the lessor or his assigns on said crops.” There might be liens on the crop…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. . MerrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. . JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- State v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890