{
  "id": 8555402,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. A. M. MANNING and A. R. MANNING",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Manning",
  "decision_date": "1969-01-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 686SC404",
  "first_page": "451",
  "last_page": "455",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. App. 451"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 410,
    "char_count": 8465,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "sha256": "cc9af17d7d91a6314fd822140decbb09b190ff87fdd8ffaec201e9949f100397",
    "simhash": "1:c821a57ae6d28f61",
    "word_count": 1441
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:22.618564+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Beitt and PaeKER, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. A. M. MANNING and A. R. MANNING"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BeocK, J.\nThis case has been considerably bothersome and confused. The State\u2019s evidence, and the conduct of the trial, concentrated upon the theory of establishing that Bellamy\u2019s Lake is a \u201cprivate pond\u201d both by virtue of descriptive testimony and by legislative declaration in Chapter 1159, Session Laws, 1961 (Senate Bill 491). Defendants\u2019 descriptive testimony tends to show that it does not come within the definition of a \u201cPrivate pond\u201d (G.S. 113-129); and defendants attack Chapter 1159, Session Laws, 1961, as being unconstitutional because it undertakes to grant an exclusive privilege which is not in consideration of public services (N. C. Const. Art. I, \u00a7 7.)\nG.S. 113-129 defines a \u201cprivate pond\u201d; but whether a pond is a \u201cprivate pond\u201d or not has no application to the trespass statute because there is no requirement that a pond must be a \u201cprivate pond\u201d in order to post the signs or posters described in G.S. 113-120.2. Therefore the argument as to whether Bellamy\u2019s Lake is or is not a \u201cprivate pond\u201d has no bearing upon a prosecution for trespass under G.S. 113-120.1. Also, we do not reach the question of the constitutionality of Chapter 1159, Session Laws, 1961, because it merely declares Bellamy\u2019s Lake to be a \u201cprivate lake\u201d and as we have said, this is not relevant to a prosecution for trespass under G.S. 113-120.1.\nThe statute under which these defendants are prosecuted reads as follows:\n\u201c\u00a7 113-120.1. Trespass for purposes of hunting, etc., without written consent a misdemeanor. \u2014 Any person who wilfully goes on the land, waters, ponds, or a legally established water fowl blind of another upon which notices, signs or posters, described in \u00a7 113-120.2, prohibiting hunting, fishing, or trapping, or upon which \u2018posted\u2019 notices have been placed, to hunt, fish or trap without the xoritten consent of the owner or his agent shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not less than fifteen dollars ($15.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00) or by confinement in jail for not more than thirty days, in the discretion of the court, provided, that if a violation of this section be committed at nighttime between the hours of sunset and sunrise, the person so offending shall be punished by a fine of not less than thirty dollars ($30.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00) or by confinement in jail for not more than thirty days, in the discretion of the court. Provided, further, that no arrests under authority of this section shall be made without the consent of the owner or owners of said land, or their duly authorised agents in the folloiving counties: Halifax, Onslow, Warren.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nIt seems clear that it is the hunting, fishing, or trapping on properly posted lands or waters without the written consent of the owner or his agent' that is declared a misdemeanor by the statute. Also, insofar as Halifax County is concerned, no arrest is to be made for such violation without the consent of the owner or his agent.\nArticle 12 of Chap. 113 of the General Statutes provides definitions of various terms used in Chap. 113. Under Art. 12 we find in G.S. 113-130 a definition of \u201cowner\u201d as follows:\n\u201c. . . as for real property, refers to persons having the present right of control, possession, and enjoyment, whether as life tenant, fee holder, beneficiary of a trust, or otherwise. Provided, that this definition does not include lessees of property except where the lease arrangement is a security device to facilitate what is in substance a sale of the property to the lessee.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nIn the case before us the H & W Lake Club is clearly a lessee of the land under and around Bellamy\u2019s Lake, and as such the Club does not fulfill the term owner as used in G.S. 113-120.1, supra, under which the defendants were prosecuted. There has been no showing that the defendants were fishing without the written consent of the owner, there has been no showing that the owner consented to their arrest, and no showing that H & W Lake Club was the agent of the owner for these purposes.\nIt seems reasonably clear that the two defendants deliberately ignored the \u201cno trespass\u201d signs, and that they were unwelcomed intruders; nevertheless the State has the burden of producing evidence to substantiate its charges against the defendants. This it has failed to do.\nThe defendant\u2019s motions for judgment of nonsuit for failure of the State\u2019s evidence to make out a case against them should have been allowed and the charges dismissed.\nReversed.\nBeitt and PaeKER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BeocK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, by (Mrs.) Christine Y. Den-son, Staff Attorney, for the State.",
      "Moore & Cook, by Stanley G. Cook, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. A. M. MANNING and A. R. MANNING\nNo. 686SC404\n(Filed 15 January 1969)\n1. Trespass \u00a7 13--- upon posted property for hunting, fishing or trapping\u2014 private pond\n\u25a0Whether a body of water is a \u201cprivate pond\u201d is not relevant to a prosecution for trespass under G.S. 113-120.1, there being no requirement that a pond must be a \u201cprivate pond\u201d in order to post the notices and signs described in G.S. 113-120.2.\n2. Trespass \u00a7 12\u2014 upon posted property for hunting, fishing or trapping\nG.S. 113-120.1 prohibits hunting, fishing or trapping on properly posted lands or waters without the written consent of the owner or his agent, provided that in designated counties, including Halifax County, no arrest may be made for such violation without consent of the owner or his agent.\n3. Trespass \u00a7 13\u2014 upon posted property for fishing \u2014 consent of owner \u2014 lessee in possession\nIn a prosecution in Halifax County under G.S. 113-120.1 for a trespass by fishing on properly posted lands and waters of a private club without the written consent of the owner or his agent, defendants\u2019 motion for nonsuit should be allowed where the State\u2019s evidence discloses that the private club is the lessee of the land under and around the lake upon which defendants were\" fishing, a lessee not being included within the term \u201cowner\u201d as used in the statute, G.S. 113-130, and there being no showing that defendants were fishing without the written consent of the actual owner, or that the owner consented to their arrest, or that the private club was the agent of the owner for these purposes.\nAppeal by defendants from Mintz, J., 3 June 1968 Session, Halifax Superior Court.\nThe defendants were charged in identical warrants with the offense that on or about the 17th day of May, 1967, they did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously trespass and go on the land and waters of H & W Lake Club, Inc., upon which notices, signs, and posters prohibiting hunting, fishing or trapping have been placed, to hunt, fish or trap, without the written consent of the owner or its agent, in violation of Section 113-120.1 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and Chapter 1159 (Senate Bill 491) of the Session Laws of 1961 which declared Bellamy\u2019s Lake to be a private lake for purpose of enforcement of laws regarding trespass.\nDefendants were found guilty in the Justice of the Peace Court and appealed to the Recorder\u2019s Court of Halifax County where they were found guilty. They then appealed to the Superior Court where they had trial de novo before a jury.\nThe evidence for the State tended to show the following: H & W Lake Club, Inc., was organized in about 1947 for the purpose of building (or rebuilding) a dam to create Bellamy\u2019s Lake. It is composed of approximately one hundred \u201cmembers\u201d who have the privilege of fishing in Bellamy\u2019s Lake. The club leases from the various owners all of the land inundated by the water of the lake, and all of the land bordering the lake with the exception of approximately fifty to one hundred feet where the water borders a public roadway. It has caused \u201cno trespass\u201d signs to be posted around and in the lake.\nThe club\u2019s president requested a constable to check persons fishing on the lake, and, if any were found fishing who were not \u201cmembers\u201d or guests of \u201cmembers,\u201d to issue warrants against them for violating the trespass statute (G.S. 113-120.1).\nOn 17 May 1967 the constable found the two defendants fishing in Bellamy\u2019s Lake and caused the two warrants to be issued upon his oath before a justice of the peace. Neither of the defendants is a \u201cmember\u201d of H & W Lake Club, and neither was a guest of a \u201cmember.\u201d\nBoth defendants were found guilty by the jury, and, from the verdict and the judgment, both defendants appealed to this Court.\nT. W. Bruton, Attorney General, by (Mrs.) Christine Y. Den-son, Staff Attorney, for the State.\nMoore & Cook, by Stanley G. Cook, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0451-01",
  "first_page_order": 471,
  "last_page_order": 475
}