The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-27
TWO JUSTICES DISSENT
Judge Clark in Vigorous Dissenting
Opinion Points Out Injustice
to landowners.
OF VAST IMPORTANCE TO FARMERS
TIE Court Decides in a Criminal Prosecution
Fer Moving Crop Tenant May Set
Up Counter Claim as an
Offset

The Supreme Court cut deep into the
Landlord and Tenant act in the case of
State vs. Neal from Nash, which was
decided Monday.
The court decides in brief that ten
ant may set up counter claim, if in
dicted for moving a crop, providing the
counter claim arises out of the contract
| for the lease of the land. In the eastern
counties it will force landlords to be
very careful
The court says the question is most
important one in it's relations to the
agricultural interests of the State-im-
portant equally to the land owner and to
| the lessee and cropper.''
Judge Clark and Judge Cook dissented
| from the courts decision and Judge
| Clark wrote very vigorous dissenting
| opinion, citing the fact that the court
had done that which no Legislature had
attempted to do for years.
The Supreme Court decides that a
lessee or cropper who has not paid his
| rents and advances in money or in
part of the crops, in an indictment for
removal of the crops from the lands of
set up in that indictment the defense
| that he has suffered damage by
| breach of contract by the landlord in as
great or greater amount than the
amount due for rent and advances and
try in the criminal action that question.
The Indictment was for the re-
moval of crop of cotton under section
1859 of the Code, which is as follows:
nr nrnn hn
signee of either, or any other person,
who shall remove said crop or any part
thereof from such land without the
consent of the lessor or his assgnees,
and without giving him or his agent five
days notice of. such intended removal
and before satisfying all the liens held
by the lessor or his assignees on said
crops. shall be guilty of misdemeanor.
and if any landlord shall unlawfully,
wilfully, knowingly and without pro-
cess of law and unjustly seize the crop
of his tenant when there is nothing due
him, he shall be guilty of misdemean-
orr
On the trial the defendant offered to
testify that the landlord contracted and
promised to repair the buildings on the
rented premises and that he failed to
do SO: that the landlord agreed to let
him have twenty-five acres, and only
let him have fifteen. and that
in consequence of these breaches
of contract he suffered damages to sucIa
an extent that at the time of the re-
moval of the crop he paid nothing on
the rent or on account of advances. The
judge of the criminal court refused to
allow the offered testimony and the de-
PENDANT excepted. In the Superior Court
it was held there was error in the ruling
of the judge and the solicitor appealed
to the Supreme Court.
Judge Montgomery, writing the opinion
for the court, said in part:
~The code in the Chapter Landlord and
Tenant. confers remedies which guard his
rights and interests in the crop more eff
fectually than those afforded the tenant
for the purpose of protecting his own
against the landlord.
sit is true that there are provisions
in the chapter entitled Landlord and Ten
ant in the code which afford a speedy
remedy to a tenant who has a contro-
yersy with his landlord in order that the
rights of both may be ascertained and
adjudicated But the tenant is not COM
PEELED to resort to that remedy whenever
the landlord makes claim for rent or
advances or for damages for failure to
comply with the stipulations in the lease
or contract. He may, if there is nothing
remove the crop without the notice re-
CURED by the statute or the consent of
the landlord and it makes no difference
as to the question of whether the ten
ant is or is not indebted to the land
lord is made to appear by proof that the
tenant has suffered damages at the hands
of the landlord by reason of his breach
OF the contract of rent or lease in a sum
equal to, or greater than the amount of
the rent DUE or by proof of payment in
money Certainly in such an Indictment
the tenant would be allowed to prove if
he could. that he had paid ih money tot
the landlord what he owed hm-that there
was nothing due; and we cannot see any
difference in legal effect between such a
payment and a payment by the recovery
of damages for a breach OF contract by
the landlord, and by which defendant
has suffered in an amount equal to the
rent due. The first method of proving
payment is as much the trial of an
action in debt as the last, But, as we
have said, the verdict of the jury on this
indictment even if in favor of che defend
ant, could not estop the landlord from
afterwards instituting civil action
against the tenant or purchaser of the
crop from him, either for it's value or for
its recovery in specie If it could be found.
1t would only put an end to criminal
proceedings against either the tenantfor
purchaser from him. 3a ap8
However it may be proper to add that
if in the trial of such an Indictment 1T
should turn out that the verdict would
be against the defendant neither his
! coed intentions nor his motives nor his
belief that he had been endangered by