Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-24

THE DEFENDANT HERD WAS
HELD GUILTY OF FoRCIBLE
4 TRDsPAss UPON THE FACTS
STATED BELOW.
This was an indictment for foroible
trespass upon land. The defendants
were convicted and appealed. The
facts as shown by the record were as
follows:
The prosecutrlx, an "old colored wo-
man." owned O small tract Of land con-
taining 20 acres; that she had lived on
this land continuously for % years.
and had a deed for the same, giving
metes and bounds;S for % years; that
there was a field Of cleared land around
her dwelling house, Enclosed by q fence,
but that this fence did not extend to
the boundary line, as indicated by her
deed, by about so yards; that the land
between her fence and the boundary
of her land, as indicated by her deed,
was woodland; that she had been in
the habit of getting wood and timber
OFF this woodland, selling wood and
timber OFF 1t to others. and also to the
defendant Elks in the year 1898; that
this woodland was in sight of the pros
ecutrix's residence. but some 300 yards
from her house; that she saw defend
ants enter upon this woodland and
commence cutting and carrying Off the
wood and timber, and she went to
within 80 or 40 yards OF where defend
ants were engaged in cutting and car
rying Off said timber, and forbade
them 10 do SO, but they refused to
stop, telling prosecutrix that she had
no land, and continued to cut and carry
off said timber until prosecuting had
them arrested, under State warrant,
FOR said alleged trespass; that she did
not go nearer to the defendants for
the reason that she was afraid to do
SO, there being six of them, all white
men, with axes and saws and the de-
PENDANT Ellks having the reputation
or being q violent and dangerous man.
The defendant claimed that he was the
owner of the locus in quo. and intro
duced deed for the same, dated in
January. 1899, from some third party.
upon this evidence the court charged
the jury, among other things, not ex-
cepted to. that If they believed the
evidence, the prosecutrix owned the
land covered by her deed, and IL pros
ecutrix went to place of the alleged
trespass, In 20 or 40 yards of defend
ants, and ordered them to desist, and
leave the premises, and the defend
ants, In her presence, and against her
protest, and on land covered by her
deed, continued to cut tlmebr, the law
would carry the force and effect of her
possession to the outer boundaries of
her deed; and if the language and con-
Duct OF the defendants were then and
there such as were calculated to pro-
woke the prosecutrix to a breach of
the peace. and their numbers such as
TO overawe resistance, or render 1t use
less, defendants would be guilty, and
this would be true though the prosecu-
trix never crossed her fence, but re-
mained all the time within her inclos-
ure." Defendants excepted to SO much
OF said charge as stated: eff alleged
trespass was committed in presence Of
2rosecutriX, and on land covered by
her deed. the law would carry the force
and effect Of her possession to the
boundary Of her deed'' Also to that
portion which said 1t was not neces-
sary for prosecutrix to have crossed
her fence.
The court held the charge of the
lnNer court to be correct, ana-sa,ls..-
1T Is shown, at least in this case
that the meshes Of the law have been
sufficient to catch and hold the strong
and to protect the weak. There is no
error, and the Judgment is affirmed"