{ "id": 8652703, "name": "THE STATE v. W. E. MILLS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mills", "decision_date": "1889-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "905", "last_page": "908", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "104 N.C. 905" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "4 Jones, 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Jones", "case_ids": [ 8682599 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/49/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N. C., 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275311 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/95/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N. C., 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278972 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/83/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N. C., 573", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278909 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/85/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N. C., 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8684465 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/70/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Ired., 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ired.", "case_ids": [ 8692530 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/26/0305-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 352, "char_count": 5266, "ocr_confidence": 0.566, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.500526080603657e-07, "percentile": 0.6655666025316533 }, "sha256": "dcc6d9b430404d7f962cd32bf6835b02af325c7e6313258ebae8b46414b69d9b", "simhash": "1:c3983939af9dda29", "word_count": 940 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:43.175763+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE STATE v. W. E. MILLS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, J.:\nTo constitute the offence of forcible trespass,, there must be either actual violence used, or such demonstration of force as was calculated to intimidate, or alarm, or involve, or tend to a breach of the peace. State v. Pearman, Phil., 371. The show of force must be such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the adversary that he must yield to avoid a breach of the peace. State v. Pollok, 4 Ired., 305. In the present case there was neither display of weapons, threats of violence, nor unusual numbers. There was nothing said or done which should have intimidated or overawed a man of ordinary firmness.\nIn State v. Covington, 70 N. C., 71, Bynum, J., states the-law so clearly and in a case so like ours that it is only necessary to cite it. In it, he says that bare words, however violent, cannot constitute the offence, and though words-accompanied by display of weapons, by numbers, or other signs of force are sufficient, yet the demonstration of force must be such as is calculated to intimidate or create a breach of peace, and adds, \u201cThe law does not allow its aid to be-invoked, by indictment, for rudeness of language, or even slight demonstrations of force against which ordinary firmness will be a sufficient protection.\u201d This case has been cited with approval in State v. Lloyd, 85 N. C., 573. In State v. Hinson, 83 N. C., 640, which was chiefly relied on by the State, the act of riding into the yard of a house occupied only by a woman, after being forbidden by her, and remaining there cursing her, was held such demonstration of force-as was calculated to intimidate or put her in fear.\nIt is true that here defendant left to avoid a breach of the peace, but the demonstration of force was not such as to give him reasonable ground for app'rehension, nor to intimidate him. The facts stated in the special verdict make only a bare civil trespass, or, at most, an \u201centry upon land after being forbidden.\u201d The defendant would not be guilty of the latter if he entered under a reasonable bona fide belief that he had the right to do so. State v. Winslow, 95 N. C., 649.\nIn State v. Ross, 4 Jones, 315, Pearson, J., adverts to the fact that unless the demonstration of force is such as is calculated to put in fear or create a breach of the peace, it is no more than a civil trespass, and adds: \u201cThe Courts should keep a steady eye to this distinction, because individuals are under great temptation to convert civil injuries into public wrongs, for the sake of becoming witnesses in their \u2022own cases and saving costs.\u201d Many eminent Judges have given caution against this growing tendency to settle private quarrels at public expense. State v. Lloyd, 85 N. C., 573. No error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, J.:" } ], "attorneys": [ "The Attorney General and Mr. W. J. Montgomery, for the-State.", "Mr. J. A. Forney, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE STATE v. W. E. MILLS.\nForcible Entry.\nWhere the defendant went to a house then in the possession of prosecutor \u2014 -the latter being present \u2014 and said, \u201cThis is my house and I mean to take possession of it,\u201d whereupon the prosecutor forbade him to enter, but the defendant did enter \u2014 using no force and making no demonstration of violence \u2014 and thereupon the prosecutor, to avoid a difficulty, went away: Held, that defendant was not guilty of a forcible entry.\nThis is an Indictment for Forcible Entry, tried at Fall Term, 1889, of Polk Superior Court, Merrimon, /.. presiding.\nThe jury returned the following special verdict:\n\u201c One Perry Bomer' was the tenant occupying the house of T. T. Ballinger and others, and about the first day of January, 1889, went to said Ballinger and told him that he was going to move, and that he (Ballinger) might come and take possession of the house. Ballinger went to the house, went in and began nailing down the windows. While he was thus engaged in the house, the defendant W. E. Mills came, accompanied by an old negro man who carried some things Mills intended to put in the house. Mills came to the door of the house and said to Ballinger, \u2018This is my house, and I mean to take possession of it.\u2019 Ballinger forbade Mills to enter, but Mills went into the house. The reason Ballinger allowed Mills to go into the house was to avoid a difficulty. The defendant said that, as he entered the house, one Garrison, from whom Ballinger and another had purchased the house, was, or had acted, a damned rascal; that it was his (defendant\u2019s) house, and he was going to have it. * * * Ballinger made no effort to keep Mills out, except to forbid him, in a quiet way, to enter. The negro man accompanied Mills in, and Mills said to the negro, 1 Bring those things in here and throw them down,\u2019 and the negro did so. Mills did not curse Ballinger or threaten to use any violence \u2014 had no weapon. In reply to what Mills said about Garrison, Ballinger told him that \u2018 If there was any trouble between him and Garrison, they could fight their own battles.\u2019 Ballinger then went away and left Mills in possession.\u201d\nThe Court being of opinion that, upon the whole matter of the foregoing special verdict, the defendant is not guilty. It is ordered by the Court that a verdict of not guilty be entered, and it is adjudged that the defendant be discharged, and that the prosecutor pay the costs of this indictment.. State appealed.\nThe Attorney General and Mr. W. J. Montgomery, for the-State.\nMr. J. A. Forney, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0905-01", "first_page_order": 921, "last_page_order": 924 }