Ward v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Lee county. Hon. Look E. Houston, Judge. Bird Ward has been convicted under chapter 56, laws 1890, of knowingly enticing away a laborer under contract to work for another. The evidence showed that the laborer was what is usually known as a “cropper” — that is, he worked land of another under a contract that he was to receive a certain share of the crop raised. The ease is further stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Lee county. Hon. Look E. Houston, Judge. Bird Ward has been convicted under chapter 56, laws 1890, of knowingly enticing away a laborer under contract to work for another. The evidence showed that the laborer was what is usually known as a “cropper” — that is, he worked land of another under a contract that he was to receive a certain share of the crop raised. The ease is further stated in the opinion. A cropper is not a tenant or an employed laborer, within the meaning of the act of 1890. There is no evidence that the landlord did not consent. The verdict is not…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
A cropper is one who is hired to work land, receiving for his compensation a part of the crop. He is not a tenant; he has no estate in the land, but receives his share- of the fruit as the price of his labor. 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 887.
Such person is a laborer within the meaning of chapter 56 of the laws of 1890, by which it is made unlawful “to entice away, knowingly employ or induce a laborer or renter who has contracted with another for a specified time, to leave his employer or the leased premises, before the expiration of his or her contract, without the consent of the employer.”
But the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kline v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by2 opinions
- Vinson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Armstrong v. BishopMississippi Supreme Court · 1928