Court Opinion

ID: 9812802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:48:30.129238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:38.834018
License: Public Domain

Dottguas, <T.,
concurring. I concur in the opinion of the Court that where the defendant is indicted for removal of the crop he may justify by showing payment, either actual or constructive, by a failure of consideration of the contract of the lease. The burden is on the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence satisfaction, either by payment or its equivalent. My reason for so holding is the hardship which might result to the tenant. It is practically impossible for the average tenant to give the bond required by law. Upon his failure to do so. tire landlord can take the entire crop, *696no- matter how largely ithnay exceed the rent in value, upon giving bond, and hold it until the action is finally determined. He can appeal to the Superior Court, and thence to. this Court. In the meantime, the tenant can starve, or subsist upon charity. Under such circumstances, if he uses a part of his crop, under the penalty of going to jail if he fails to' show that he has fully satisfied all liens, I think he should have the opportunity of showing payment, or its equivalent.