Case Name: STATE v. C. E. HILL
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1914-04-15
Citations: 166 N.C. 298
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. C. E. HILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 166
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
STATE v. C. E. HILL.
(Filed 15 April, 1914.)
Landlord’s Lien — Guests — Surreptitious Departure — Trials—Questions for Jury.
When there is evidence that one having received accommodation at a hotel left with his baggage without notice to the proprietor and without having paid his hotel bill, it is sufficient for conviction, under ch. 816, Laws 1907; Pell’s Rev., 8434a; it being for the jury to determine whether he surreptitiously removed the baggage to defeat the landlord’s lien (Rev., 2037), the statute not requiring proof or charge of intent to defraud in such instances.
Appeal by defendant from Lane, J., at March Term, 1914, of Guilford.
Attorney-General T. W. Bichett and, Assistant Attorney-General T. LI. Calvert for the State.
Thomas J. Gold and Stern & Duncan for defendant.

Opinion:
Clark, C. J".
The defendant was tried in the Municipal Court of High Point for violation of ch. 816, Laws 1907; Pell's Rev., 3434a, and found guilty. On appeal to the Superior Court he was again found guilty and appealed.,
The warrant charged that the defendant "did willfully, maliciously, and unlawfully obtain and procure board and lodging at the Elwood Hotel and did abscond, surreptitiously removing his baggage therefrom, without paying for said board and lodging, having obtained same with intent to defraud the proprietor of said hotel." The evidence is that he registered at said hotel, and was assigned to a room, to which he went, his band baggage being carried up by a servant. Tbe next morning, by bis order, breakfast was sent to bis room. Later in tbe day be was seen in tbe lobby and disappeared, having carried off bis baggage and leaving bis bill unpaid.
Tbe only question tbat is presented is tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence to go to tbe jury. Tbe defendant could not be indicted, of course, for nonpayment of tbe debt, but be is guilty only if tbe jury finds tbat be obtained board and lodging and absconded, surreptitiously removing bis baggage.
Rev., 3434a, prescribes three classes of offenses:
1. If any person obtains any lodging, food or accommodation at an inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house, without paying therefor, with intent to defraud tbe proprietor or manager thereof.
2. Or obtains credit at such an inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house by tbe use of any false pretense.
3. Or, after obtaining credit or accommodation at an inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house, absconds and surreptitiously removes bis baggage therefrom, without paying for bis food, accommodation, or lodging.
This last does not require proof or charge of intent to defraud. Tbe landlord bad a lien upon bis baggage (Rev., 2037), and the abrupt departure of tbe defendant from tbe hotel and removing bis baggage without notice to the proprietor and without paying bis bill was an absconding and made him guilty if tbe baggage was removed surreptitiously and there was evidence from which tbe jury could so find.
There may happen instances where a guest must leave suddenly and without notice, and without any intention to defraud tbe proprietor.. But in such case it is always open to him to show why be left without paying, and be will always take tbe promptest measures to forward payment to tbe proprietor. But there is here no evidence of such necessity for abrupt departure without notice, nor of any effort to send payment for bis board to tbe proprietor. Indeed, on this evidence tbe jury might have inferred reasonably tbat tbe defendant was guilty on tbe first part of tbe bill for obtaining, tbe accommodation with intent to defraud.
No error.