State v. . King
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an INDICTMENT for larceny, tried before Connor, Judge, at October Term, 1887, of Robesok Superior Court. The defendant was charged with having stolen turpentine, the property of one Wm.
Read the full summary
This was an INDICTMENT for larceny, tried before Connor, Judge, at October Term, 1887, of Robesok Superior Court. The defendant was charged with having stolen turpentine, the property of one Wm. M. White, the prosecutor, and who testified in substance that in July, 1887, the defendant dipped turpentine from boxes on his land and sold it; that he (witness) was the owner of the trees from which the turpentine was dipped and the turpentine was his property; that the defendant first denied taking the turpentine, but afterward acknowledged that he took it and offered to pay for it. Upon…
1Opinion of the Court
'Davis, J.,
(after stating the case). Turpentine, when in boxes ready to be dipped, is persona] property. It is no longer a part of the tree, but has been separated by a process of labor and cultivation, and may be the subject of larceny. State v. Moore, 11 Ired., 70.
The Code, §1762, declares that leases, or contracts to lease turpentine trees, shall be subject to all the provisions of the chapter entitled “Landlord and Tenant” (chapter 40 of The Code), and the turpentine is, therefore, deemed and held to be vested in possession of the lessor, as other crops, under what is known as the “…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. . WebbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- State v. . CopelandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dickens v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
- Florala Sawmill Co. v. ParrishSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908