Case Name: STATE v. AUGUSTUS HOLLY et als.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1910-02-25
Citations: 152 N.C. 839
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. AUGUSTUS HOLLY et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 839–840

Head Matter:
STATE v. AUGUSTUS HOLLY et als.
(Filed 25 February, 1910.)
Master and Servant — Unlawful Enticing Servant — Statutory Offense.
In order to constitute the offense prescribed by Revisal, sec. 3365, it must be something more than the mere employment of a servant or employee who is under contract to serve another. It must be shown that defendant enticed, persuaded or procured the servant to leave his master; but as in this ease there was evidence tending to show this, it was properly submitted to the jury.
Appeal by defendants from Ward, J., at Fall Term, 1909, of Ohowaií.
Indictment for procuring and enticing a servant or employee to unlawfully leave his employer under section 3365 of the Re-visal. Nol. pros, was entered as to defendant Outlaw. There was a verdict of guilty as to defendants Augustus Holly and George Holly, who1 appealed.
Attorney-General and W. M. Bond for plaintiff.
W. D. Pruden and 8. B. Shepherd for defendants.

Opinion:
PeR Curiam.
Tbe only question discussed in tbe brief of defendants' counsel relates to the sufficiency of tbe evidence to convict of tbe crime created by tbe statute.
We agree with counsel tbat tbe mere employment of one who is under contract to serve another is not a violation of tbe statute. It must be shown that the defendant did something to entice, persuade or procure the servant to leave his master.
After a careful examination of the evidence a majority of the Court are of opinion that the evidence discloses some facts and circumstances tending to prove that these defendants induced, enticed and assisted Outlaw to leave his employer and enter into their service under conditions which make their conduct a violation of the statute, and that the court was warranted in submitting the question to the jury.
The judgment is
Affirmed.