State v. Edmonds

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Edmonds

28 S.E. 545, 121 N.C. 679

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 S.E. 545 (State v. Edmonds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Edmonds, 28 S.E. 545, 121 N.C. 679 (N.C. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Faircloth, C. J.:

This indictment is for removing a division fence between the defendant and the prosecuting witness, which had existed for several years, and was alleged to have been removed without notice to the owner of the other half of the fence, contrary to the provisions of The Code, Section 2802. The case was tried, exceptions to the charge made, and the jury rendered a verdict of guilty. We take a view of this case which relievos us from considering any of the exceptions, motions or alleged defects in the bill of indictment. The Act of 1885, Chapter 219, declares it to be unlawful for any live stock to run at large in Buncombe county and forbids any person to permit any of his live stock to enter upon the lands of another without leave from the owner. The Act fully provides the machinery for establishing in said county what is known as a “stock law” requiring an outside fence to be erected around the county by the Board of County Commissioners. Under this Act *680 defendant certainly could dispense with his outside fence, and we see no advantage to either party to keep up a division fence as required by Chapter 20 of The Code. This being so, the defendant committed no offence in pulling down and removing his part of the fence, without any regard to his intention to cultivate or pasture his own land. This action must be dismissed. Judgment reversed.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Faircloth, C. J.:

This indictment is for removing a division fence between the defendant and the prosecuting witness, which had existed for several years, and was alleged to have been removed without notice to the owner of the other half of the fence, contrary to the provisions of The Code, Section 2802. The case was tried, exceptions to the charge made, and the jury rendered a verdict of guilty. We take a view of this case which relievos us from considering any of the exceptions, motions or alleged defects in the bill of indictment. The Act of 1885, Chapter 219, declares it to be unlawful for any live stock to run at large in Buncombe county and forbids any person to permit any of his live stock to enter upon the lands of another without leave from the owner. The Act fully provides the machinery for establishing in said county what is known as a “stock law” requiring an outside fence to be erected around the county by the Board of County Commissioners. Under this Act *680 defendant certainly could dispense with his outside fence, and we see no advantage to either party to keep up a division fence as required by Chapter 20 of The Code. This being so, the defendant committed no offence in pulling down and removing his part of the fence, without any regard to his intention to cultivate or pasture his own land. This action must be dismissed. Judgment reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.E. 545, 121 N.C. 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-edmonds-nc-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack