Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

97 N.C. 494

2 S.E 148

State v. . Talbot

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1887

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1887-02-05

Indictment, tried before Gilmer, Judge, and a jury, at November Term, 1886, of Cumberland Superior Court. The defendants were tried and convicted upon an indictment charging them with a forcible entry upon the premises ■of the prosecutor, P. N. Talbot, he being present and forbidding the same. It was in evidence that the defendants and two others were found by the prosecutor at work clearing off a ditch, which divided his field from that of the defendant G-.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1964

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-02-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Suite, C. J.,

¶1 (after stating the facts). The only question presented is, do the facts sustain the charge ?

¶2 While the original entry, though so near the dwelling, was peaceful and without violence by one to whom the premises belonged, and in the absence of the prosecutor, yet the farther encroachment in pursuing him with menaces and abuse, even up to the yard gate, was in law sufficient to warrant the charge. It would have been scarcely more an ■entry for the defendants to have pursued the occupant into Ms yard, than it was by violence to push him up to its entrance ; and it was a fresh aggression to pass with a strong *496 hand oyer other parts of the field, when the prosecutor was-present forbidding it, with demonstrations of violence which intimidated and overcame resistance.

¶3 The charge of the Court is borne out by the adjudications in this Court; State v. Windenhouse, 71 N. C., 279; State v. Lloyd, 85 N. C., 573.

¶4 There is no error, and judgment must be affirmed. Let this be certified.

¶5 - No error. Affirmed.

/97/nc/494 · .json · Public domain