State v. Pollok, 26 N.C. 303, 4 Ired. 303 (1844)

June 1844 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

26 N.C. 303, 4 Ired. 303

THE STATE vs. WILLIAM A. J. POLLOK.

Where'a gate has been unlawfully erected ¿cross a public road, and the proprietor of the land through which the road passes and on which the gate has been placed, afterwards sells the land to A., who never actually entered into the land but leased it to others, who kept up the gate, A. is not indictable for the' continuance of the nuisance.

Appeal from the Shperior Court of Law of Onslow County at the Spring Term,-1844, his Honor Judge Manly' presiding.

The defendant was indicted for obstructing a public road by erecting and keeping across it a gate, without a licence from the County Court.- On not guilty pleaded, the jury found a special verdict: That a former owner of the land,through which the road passes, erected the gate in qestion ; that, four years before the bill was found, that person sold and conveyed the land to the defendant, with the gate then standing; that the defendant did not at any time actually enter into the land, but that he leased the same to other persons,who entered and have occupied the land ever since as the tenants of the defendant, and have kept up the gate up to the finding of the bill; and that no licence was ever given by the County Court to any person to erect the gate.

On this verdict judgment was given for the defendant, and g0¡jcj(;01. for the State appealed.

Attorney General for the State.

No counsel for the defendant in this Court.

Ruffin, C. J.

The person, who erected the gate and those who have kept it up and used it, are guilty of the of-fence charged in the indictment. But the defendant is not responsible for their acts, in which he had no participation by aiding in or procuring them to be done. Any person might abate the nuisance erected on the defendant’s 1 and; but he, merely as owner, is not more under an obligation to do so, than any other citizen. If one cut a tree across the road on another’s land, the owner of the land is not obliged to remove it, but the overseer of the road. The tenants, who use the gate by keeping it closed and impeding the travel, are, no doubt, guilty. But a landlord is not answerable crimi-naliter for nuisances erected or continued by the lessee. To make one guilty of a crime, some personal agency or delinquency of his own is requisite.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.