{
  "id": 2083632,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN ELLEN and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ellen",
  "decision_date": "1873-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "281",
  "last_page": "283",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. 281"
    }
  ],
  "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": 287,
    "char_count": 4085,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548115125890572e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9244145121974293
    },
    "sha256": "2530db0e3dc28baba36b94f5f70c20f7d82652fb4f1e046119511a7e8c0c3a37",
    "simhash": "1:d37b5633ed08b1d2",
    "word_count": 733
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:25.985368+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN ELLEN and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Boyden, J.\nAs we -understand the case, his Honor was right in giving judgment for the defendants upon the case agreed; and his Honor could not have given judgment against the defendants, without substantially disregarding the decision in the case of the State v. Hanks et al., 66 N. C. Rep. 612. Indeed, that was a much stronger case against the defendants, as in that case, the son of the prosecutor, who had cultivated the field invaded for two years, was actually present forbidding the entry which might have resulted in a breach of the peace; and in that case, as intimated in the opinion of the Court, had the title to the land been in the prosecutor, the defendants would have been liable to a civil action of trespass, however honest their belief of their right to pass through the field, to complete their survey under the warrant. In the\u00bbcase before us, we take for granted that his Honor'held, that, as the defendants set up a bona fide claim of title to the land, the case was not within the Act of 1865-66, and in this his Honor was right.\nIt cannot be denied that the case of the State v. Hanks et al., was in the words of the statute, hut the Court held it not within the meaning.\nIn the case of the State v. Dedson, 6 Caldwell\u2019s Tenn. Rep. decided in 1869, under a statute similar to the act of 1865-66, the judge, in delivering the opinion of the Court, says: \u201c If we commit a trespass upon the land of another, his good faith in the matter, or ignoi\u2019ance of the true right or title, will not exonerate him from civil responsibility for the act. But when the statute affixed to such a trespass the coxisequences of a criminal offence, we will not presume that the Legislature intended to punish criminally acts committed in ignorance, by accident or under claim of right and in the bona fide belief that the land is the property of the trespasser unless the terms of the statute forbid any other construction.\nIt was upon this very ground stated by Judge Andrews. in the case of Dodson v. the State, that the case of the State v. Hanks et al was decided. That case was manifestly within, the words, bnt as the Court held, not within the mischief.\nWe held the decision in that case was right, and that wa\u00ae full authority for his Honor\u2019s ruling in our case.\nThere is no error.\nThis will be certified.\nPer Curiam.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Boyden, J. Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Hargrove, for the State.",
      "lodd, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN ELLEN and others.\nWhere A, under a c\u00bbntraot of purchase, claimed a tract of land, in the possession of, and also claimed by B, and entered upon and took temporary possession of a cabin on the land, though forbidden byB to do so : Held, that Awa'snot indictable under the Act of 1865-\u201966 for a wilful trespass.\n(State v. Sank and Durham, 66 N. C. Kep. 612, cited and approved.)\n'Indictment for wilful Trespass, tried before Mitchell, J., at the Fall Term, 1872, of Ashe Superior Court.\nThe defendants were indicted, under the Statute of 1866, chap. 60, for a wilful trespass on the lands of one Mary Miller, after having been notified, and forbidden to do so. The prosecutrix claimed the right of possession of the land whereon the trespass was committed, in consideration of her husband having claimed it, and held it adversely and cultivated it continuously from the year 1860 to the time of his death; since which time, she and one Jonathan Miller, co-guardians of her children, have held the land and cultivated it for the children\u2019s benefit. Such w^as the only \u25a0evidence of her title and that of the children.\nThe defendants claiming title under a contract of purchase from one Waugh, in January, 1872, entered upon the land against the consent of Mrs. Miller, and after being forbidden, and took temporary possession of a cabin, which was being erected on the land. From this they were ousted, and departed, taking with them some articles they had placed in dhe cabin.\nHis Honor being of opinion with the defendants, so instructed the jury, who returned a verdict of not guilty. Motion for a new trial; motion overruled. Judgment, and appeal by the State.\nAttorney General Hargrove, for the State.\nlodd, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0281-01",
  "first_page_order": 291,
  "last_page_order": 293
}