{
  "id": 2086787,
  "name": "STATE vs. DANIEL HEADRICK",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Headrick",
  "decision_date": "1856-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "375",
  "last_page": "376",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Jones 375"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "48 N.C. 375"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2495,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.371,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5646153876272043e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8156805667048542
    },
    "sha256": "05b41441e6588c8fc8a7f9682ef1720e29f992655069868eba9265b10e41af48",
    "simhash": "1:f3d109708f7efe7b",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:13.305795+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. DANIEL HEADRICK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nThe present indictment is framed upon the 103d section of the 34th chapter of the Eevised Code, which enacts that, \u201c If any person shall unlawfully and wilfully burn, destroy, pull down, inj are or remove any fence, wall or other enclosure, or any part thereof surrounding or about any yard, garden cultivated field, or pasture,\u201d he shall be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor. The special verdict states, that the part of the fence, for the taking away of which the defendant was indicted, was \u201c unlawfully and without license\u201d put upon his land by the prosecutor. How it would be unlawful for the defendant to remove this obstruction from his own land, we are unable to conceive. If the prosecutor sustained any damage, it was in consequence of his own wrongful act, and he cannot make the defendant criminally responsible for it. \u201cTo subject a person to the penalties of the Act in question, he must be guilty of trespass,\u201d of which the defendant in the present case, certainly was not. State v. Williams, Busb. Rep. 197. The judgment must be affirmed.\nPee Cueiam.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J. Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant in this Court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. DANIEL HEADRICK.\nIt is not indictable for one to remove a fence from his own land which had been unlawfully put there by another, although it did partially enclose a cultivated field belonging to that other.\nIn order to subject one to the penalties of the Act of 1816, for removing a fence, he must be guilty of a trespass.\nThis was an indictment for removing a fence, under tbe Act of Assembly of 1846, Eev. Code ch. 34, sec. 103, tried before his Honor, Judge Dick, at the last Superior Court of Davidson County.\nThe defendant being the lessee of a field for a term of years, built a fence near the dividing line, between his land and the land of the prosecutor, which was then under cultivation, but entirely on his own premises. The prosecutor unlawfully and without license, extended his fences over upon the land of the defendant, and joined them with the fence of the latter. It was for removing that part of the prosecutor\u2019s fence, which was on the land possessed by the defendant, that this indictment was brought. This was a case agreed and put in the form of a special verdict, in which the foregoing facts were submitted for the Judgment of the Court. His Honor being of opinion for the defendant, accordingly gave judgment for him, from which the solicitor for the State appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant in this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0375-01",
  "first_page_order": 385,
  "last_page_order": 386
}