Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Tolever

27 N.C. 452

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Date: 1845-06-05
Topic: general

Daniel, J. The prosecutrix was quietly in possession of' the premises, under a parol lease then unexpired. She was personally present in the house with her family of children, ‘ when the defendants entered the yard of the house. The judge told the jury, that if the two defendants,- with Elizabeth Tole-ver and Louisa Tolever, (the two latter’ of whom were not? tried) entered the yard with hostile and unkind feelings and manner, against the will of the prosecutrix, to injure or insult her, and there remained against her will and refused to go away when she bid them, and that they had a common pur-' pose in so doing, and abetted each other, such acts would make them guilty of a forcible trespass. An indictment will.' *454 lie at common law for forcible entry, if it contain such a state ment, as shews that the facts charged amount to more than a bare trespass; as by violently taking and keeping possession jantjs menaces, force and arms, without the authority of the law, 1 Rus. on Crimes, 283, Four persons entered the yard of the nearly defenceless prosecutrix, with a common intent (as the jury have found) to abet each other in injuring and insulting, and actually insulting her with abusive language and gestures, and thrusting from the yard, through her broken door, the carcass of a dead animal.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. . Tolever. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 5 opinions

STATEv. TOLEVER,27 N.C. 452(1845)

THE STATE v. WILLIAM TOLEVER ET AL.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

(June Term, 1845.)

1. Where the prosecutrix was in the peaceable possession, with her family, of a dwelling-house and its appurtenances, and four persons entered the yard of the house with hostile or unkind feelings and manner, against the will of the prosecutrix, to injure and insult her, and refused to go away when she bade them, and they had a common purpose in so doing, and abetted each other:Held, that such acts and purposes rendered the parties liable to an indictment for a forcible trespass.

2. An indictment for forcible trespass will lie at common law if the facts charged amount to more than a bare trespass.

3. When the name of the county is mentioned in the margin of the indictment, and it is stated that the dwelling-house on which the forcible trespass is alleged to have been committed was"theresituate and being," this must refer to the county mentioned in the margin.

APPEAL from ASHE, Spring Term, 1845;Bailey, J.

The defendants, William Tolever and Caroline Tolever, were tried upon the following indictment, to wit:

State of North Carolina,} Superior Court of Law, Ashe County, }ss. Spring Term, 1843.

The jurors for the State, upon their oaths, present that William Tolever, late of the said county, laborer, Elizabeth Tolever, Caroline Tolever and Louisa Tolever, all late of said county, spinsters, on 1 April, 1843, with force and arms into a certain yard and dwelling house, then situate and being, and then and there in the possession of Polly Long, unlawfully, violently, forcibly, and with a strong hand, did enter into, and then and there unlawfully, violently, forcibly, and with a strong hand did throw certain filth and dead carcasses intoPage 321the said house, she, the said Polly, then and there being therein, and then and there did remain cursing, abusing and threatening the said Polly for a long time, to wit, for one half hour, and other wrongs then and there did, to the great terror of the said Polly Long, then and there being, and against the peace and dignity of the State. (453)

It is unnecessary to detail the testimony introduced on the trial, as the instructions of the presiding judge sufficiently indicate its general nature. The judge instructed the jury that if the defendants, now on trial, together with Elizabeth, the mother, and Louisa, the other daughter of William, went into the space that had been enclosed as a yard in a peaceful and friendly manner they would not be guilty; but if the four went into the said space with hostile or unkind feelings and manner, against the will of Polly Long, to injure or insult her, and there remained against her will and refused to go away when she bid them, and they had a common purpose in so doing and abetted each other, although there was no fence around the said space, yet such acts would constitute a forcible trespass and the defendants would be guilty. The jury found the defendants guilty. A motion was then made in arrest of judgment, for that the offense is not charged to have been in the county of Ashe. This motion was overruled and judgment being rendered pursuant thereto, the defendants appealed.

Attorney General for the State.Boyden for defendants.

DANIEL, J.

The prosecutrix was quietly in possession of the premises under a parol lease then expired. She was personally present in the house with her family of children when the defendants entered the yard of the house. The judge told the jury that if the two defendants, with Elizabeth Tolever and Louisa Tolever (the two latter of whom were not tried), entered the yard with hostile and unkind feelings and manner, against the will of the prosecutrix, to injure or insult her, and there remained against her will and refused to go away when she bid them, and that they had a common purpose in so doing and abetted each other, such acts would make them guilty of a forcible trespass. An indictment will lie at common law for forcible entry, if it contain such a statement as shows that the facts charged amount to more than a bare trespass; as by violently (454) taking and keeping possession of lands with menaces, force and arms, without the authority of the law, 1 Rus., Crimes, 283. Four persons entered the yard of the nearly defenseless prosecutrix, withPage 322a common intent (as the jury have found) to abet each other in injuring and insulting, and actually insulting her with abusive language and gestures, and thrusting from the yard, through her broken door, the carcass of a dead animal. These facts show that it was more than a bare trespass. They had a tendency to alarm some, and cause others to commit breaches of the peace. We think that the charge of the court was correct.

Second. The defendants moved in arrest of judgment, because the offense is not, as they say, charged to have been committed in the county of Ashe. The answer is that the county of Ashe is set forth in the margin of the indictment; and the body of the indictment then proceeds to mention the defendants by name "of said county," and that they "into a certain yard and dwelling house,theresituate and being, and then andtherein possession of Polly Long, unlawfully did enter, etc." The words"there situate andbeing"must refer to the county mentioned in the margin of the indictment.S. v. Bell,25 N.C. 506. This motion was properly overruled by the court.

PER CURIAM. No error.Cited: S. v. Whitfield,30 N.C. 317;S. v. Bordeaux,47 N.C. 244;S. v. Caldwell, ibid., 471;S. v. Tuttle,145 N.C. 488;S. v. Jones,170 N.C. 755.

(455)