State v. . Turner
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for removing crop, tried at Fall Term, 1889, of JoNES Superior Court, Boylcin, J., presiding. The indictment charges that, on the 21st day of March, 1889, in the county of -Jones, the defendant “ did, by a certain contract and agreement, rent from C. C. Brown, receiver, certain turpentine trees on the lands known as,”&c., “and after-wards, to-wit, on the first day of July, A. D. 1889, in said county, unlawfully and wilfully did remove from said land a part of the…
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for removing crop, tried at Fall Term, 1889, of JoNES Superior Court, Boylcin, J., presiding. The indictment charges that, on the 21st day of March, 1889, in the county of -Jones, the defendant “ did, by a certain contract and agreement, rent from C. C. Brown, receiver, certain turpentine trees on the lands known as,”&c., “and after-wards, to-wit, on the first day of July, A. D. 1889, in said county, unlawfully and wilfully did remove from said land a part of the crop of turpentine raised during the lease and term aforesaid, * * * to wit, two barrels of turpentine, without the…
1Opinion of the CourtMerrimon, C. J.
after stating the case: The statute (The Code, § 1762) extends the other statute (The Code § 1759) to “ all leases or contracts.to lease turpentine trees,” and thus it is made a misdemeanor for the lessee of turpentine- trees to remove any part of the turpentine crop in the like case as when the removal of the crop by an agricultural tenant is made such offence.
The first exception is .without mer.t. As the defendant leased the turpentine trees from the prosecutor, he became the latter’s tenant, and could not be heard to say that his landlord was not entitled to rent, and, therefore, had no…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. HeatonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
3Cited by3 opinions
- Goff v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1910
- State v. . HeatonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
- State v. . TomlinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877