majority"> *952 Ashe, J.,

(after stating the facts). On the night of the 30th of November, 1885, a number of people, men and women, were quietly assembled at the house of a Mrs. Ives, and at the late hour of 10 o’clock, the peace and quiet of the household was disturbed, by the approach of this formidable defendant, with curses and threats of vengeance and death against the occupant of the house. Such was the terrible order of his coming, that all the iumates of the house fled panic-stricken therefrom; and betook themselves to places of concealment and safety. The door had been barred, but that formed no impediment to the furious onslaught of the redoubtable knight-errant. He kicked down the door, entered the house, and fell over something, by which his leg tvas unfortunately broken, instead of his neck, and yet it is seriously contended before us, that he is guilty of no oifence.

In the Court below, his Honor treated the case as an indictment for a forcible trespass, and although forcible trespass and forcible entry, at common law, are distinct offences, yet nearly allied, and although we are not prepared to say that the indictment in this case may not be upheld as one for a forcible trespass, it is certainly a good indictment at common law for a forcible entry. A forcible trespass, strictly speaking, applies to personal property, and a forcible entry to lands and tenements. To constitute either an indictable offence, there must be something more than a mere trespass; there must be some act. that amounts to a breach of the peace. But it is not necessary that the act should be one of great public violence or terror, for it is established, that an entry into a house or garden, though no one be therein, with such actual violence as amounts to a public breach of the peace, expressed in law to be “ with force and arms and a strong hand;” forexample, threatening violence, or breaking open a door, or bringing a multitude of attendants, with unusual weapons, is an offence indictable at common law, as a forcible entry. 1 Hawk. Pleas of the Crown, §26; Langdon v. Potter, 3 Mass., 215; Harding case, 1 Green, 22; Burnett v. State, 4 Rich, 340, and *953 State v. Pollock, 4 Ired., 405, which, without relying upon any other authority, is decisive of this case. It was there held, where a party entering on land in possession of another, either by his behavior or speech, gives those who are in possession, just cause to fear .that he will do them some bodily harm, if they do not give way to him, his entry is esteemed forcible, whether he cause the terror by carrying with him such an unusual number of attendants, or by arming himself in such a manner as plainly to intimate his design to back his pretensions by force, or by actually threatening to hill, maim, or beat those who continue in possession, or by making use of expression plainly implying a purpose of using force against those who make resistance.

Our opinion is there was no error. Let this be certified to the Superior Court of Richmond county, that the case may be proceeded with in conformity to this opinion and the law.

No error. Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress