{
  "id": 11278417,
  "name": "STATE vs. JACOB HANKS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hanks",
  "decision_date": "1872-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "612",
  "last_page": "614",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 N.C. 612"
    }
  ],
  "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": "9 Ired., 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692578
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/31/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Ired., 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692578
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/31/0375-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 278,
    "char_count": 4569,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.4,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6414738842919635e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8231732815310854
    },
    "sha256": "f1c25698c7b801399eeadcbb23fbe6da6456343dbabe8de378a4d7590ecac2db",
    "simhash": "1:6bd72888ae21ea1e",
    "word_count": 797
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:37.048272+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. JACOB HANKS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoyden, J.\nHis Honor was mistaken in supposing that the act of 1865-\u201966 was intended to cover such a case as' this. The act is entitled \u201can act to prevent wilful tresspasses on lands, and stealing any kind of property therefrom it was manifestly its object to keep off interlopers, and to subject them to indictment, if they invaded the possession after they had been forbidden.\nThe defendants in this case supposed that they were engaged in the performance of a duty imposed upon them by law, they had no purpose or intent of doing any wrong to the prosecutor.\nThe defendant, Hanks, having made an entry and having procured a warrant of survey, and having employed the county surveyor who had summoned and sworn the defendant Durham as a chain-carrier, were all in the act of making a survey of the entry when they passed through a small piece of inclosed ground, which had been cleared and cultivated by the son of the prosecutor, who was present, and by the directions of his father, forbid the entry, and the case states they had before been forbidden, but that could make no difference.\nIn the case of the State v. McCauless, 9 Ired., 375, the present Chief Justice says the \u201cgist of the offence of forcible trespass is a high-handed invasion of the actual possession of another, he being present; the title is not drawn in question.\u201d\nWith what propriety could the action of the defendants be denominated a high-handed invasion of the actual possession of the prosecutor. It would seem to be a complete perversion of language thus to designate the conduct of the defendants.\nDoubtless the defendants honestly believed that the warrant of survey gave them a license to enter the land of the prosecutor, if it became necessary to do so, in surveying the entry. It may be that m this they were mistaken, and that if the field through which they passed was not vacant land, but really was the land of the prosecutor, the defendants subjected themselves to a civil action, but not to an indictment for a forcible trespass.\nThere is error. This will be certified.\nPbk Curiam. Error*.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoyden, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Shipp and IF. P. Caldwell for the State.",
      "N~o Counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. JACOB HANKS et al.\n1. The object of the act of 1805-\u201966, entitled \u201cAn act to prevent willful trespass on lands,\u201d &c., was to keep of intruders, and to subject them to indictment it they invaded the possession after they had been forbidden.\n3. A fercible trespass \u201cis a high-handed invasion of the actual possession o\u00ed another, he being present, the title is not drawn in question. Where, therefore, a person who had made an entry, believing- a tract of land to be vacant, and had \u25a0 procured a warrant of survey, and under said warrant of survey, had entered upon the land id the possession of another ; 1{eld, that although the land was-not vacant, yet that such person could only be guilty of a civil trespass and not a forciple one, as above defined.\nState v- MeO&ulm, 9 Ired., 375.\nThis was an indictment for a forcible entry, tried before Mitchell, Judge, at Fall Term 1871, of Wilkes Superior Court.\nThe case was, that the defendant, Hanks, had made au entry and procured a warrant to survey the land upon which the alleged trespass was committed. The warrant was placed in ilic bauds of the county surveyor who summoned and swore the defendant, Durham, and another as chain-carriers.\nThe surveyor and the iwo defendants and the other chain-carrier, proceeded to survey tbe land and the trespass was in making the survey under the circumstances hereafter stated.\nThe prosecutor claimed the land embraced in the defendant\u2019s survey ; alleged that he had been in possession for more than fifty years under known and visible boundaries; he showed a grant issued in 1803, and a deed for fifty acres which covered a portion of the tract surveyed ; the defendants and the surveyor passed through a field claimed by the prosecutor, \u25a0and which had been cleared, fenced and occupied, for two years or more, by a son of the prosecutor; the prosecutor knowing the intention of the defendant, Hanks, to enter and survey this land, objected to his doing so ; when the survey was made the son of the prosecutor was present and for his father forbade the surveyor and defendants from entering upon his land; \u25a0they did enter and run a line through it.\nThe defendants insisted that they were not guilty upon this state of facts, and that the indictment could not be sustained under the act of 1865-\u201966, chap. 65.\nHis Honor charged the jury that if they believed the testimony the defendants were guilty.\nAttorney General Shipp and IF. P. Caldwell for the State.\nN~o Counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0612-01",
  "first_page_order": 634,
  "last_page_order": 636
}