The Attorney-General very properly conceded that this case must be governed by that of State v. Merritt, 89 N. C., 506, which is substantially like this. Here, there are two counts in the indictment, and in each it is charged that the •seed-cotton was removed by the defendant “without satisfying <dl Kens on said crops.” The language here quoted from the indictment is not that of the act (The Code, §1759), nor does it embody the substance of it.
The act provides, “ and before satisfying all the liens held by the lessor or his assigns on said crops.” There might be liens on the crop other than those in favor of the “lessor or his assigns,” •and it would not be indictable to remove the crop or a part of it before these were satisfied. The indictment does not aver that the lessor or his assigns ” had liens on the crop. It may be, it is possible, he did not; it may be that other persons had; in cither case, there would be no criminal offence under the statute.
The indictment ought to charge the relation between the “lessor ■or his assigns” and the lessee or the assigns of the latter, the liens on the crop, and that the defendant as lessee, or his assigns, or some other person, as the case may be, pending the relation, removed the crop or a part thereof from the laud, “ without the •consent of the lessor or his assigns” (as the case may be), and *714without giving him or his agent five days’ notice of such intended removal, and before satisfying all the liens held by the “lessor or his-assigns on the crops.”
The court properly quashed the indictment. There is no-error.
No error. Affirmed.