majority"> *650 'Davis, J.,

(after stating the case). Turpentine, when in boxes ready to be dipped, is persona] property. It is no longer a part of the tree, but has been separated by a process of labor and cultivation, and may be the subject of larceny. State v. Moore, 11 Ired., 70.

The Code, §1762, declares that leases, or contracts to lease turpentine trees, shall be subject to all the provisions of the chapter entitled “Landlord and Tenant” (chapter 40 of The Code), and the turpentine is, therefore, deemed and held to be vested in possession of the lessor, as other crops, under what is known as the “ Landlord and Tenant Act.”

In State v. Copeland, 86 N. C., 691, it was held that the cropper or lessee could not be convicted of larceny for appropriating the crop to his own use before delivery to the landlord, though done with a felonious intent, because he was in the actual and rightful possession, and there could be no taking in a legal sense; but if the crop had been put in the actual possession of the landlord, though undivided, it would have been different, as was held in State v. Webb, 87 N. C., 558, where the defendant, a tenant, was indicted and convicted for stealing wheat, the property of his landlord, which had been harvested and threshed, and, before any division, stored in a house on the premises, the door to which was locked and the key kept by the landlord. The Court said that he was guilty, notwithstanding his interest in the property.

The ownership of the property was rightly laid in the prosecutor, and there was no error in the charge of his Honor.

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress