Court Opinion

ID: 9811535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:23:45.713853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:00.019885
License: Public Domain

Dougjlas, J.,
concurring in result. I still adhere to the principles asserted in my concurring opinion in Neal’s case, as it seems proper that all statutes should, as far as possible, be construed in accordance with natural justice. Section 1759 of The Code provides that “Any lessee or cropper, or the assigns of either, or any other person, who shall remove said crop or any part thereof from such land without the con*678sent of the lessor. or his assigns 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 assigns on said crop, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
It will be noticed that the conjunction “and” is used in connecting the three acts constituting the offense, which, therefore, depends upon the concurrence of all three of the conditions. If consent is obtained, or notice is given, or the liens are paid, there can be no offense, as one of its essential conditions is lacking. The evident purpose of the statute is to secure the payment of all liens; and if such liens are paid, its essential object is fully accomplished.
The record states that “The defendants offered to prove that they had suffered damage by reason of the prosecutor not complying with his contract in excess of the advancements and the rents. The Court said he would permit the evidence to set-off the advancements made by the prosecutor, but exclude its application to set-off the rents.” I do not clearly see the distinction between rents and advancements. In either aspect I do not see why a defendant may not be permitted to plead a just indebtedness arising out of the same transaction of rehting. This would be a valid set-off or counter claim in a civil action, and would prevent any recovery by the landlord. Of course the tenant would act at his own peril and would be criminally liable if he failed to make good his defense; but it seems to me that he should have the opportunity of presenting it. Whether the landlord was in fact liable in any amount to the defendants in the case at-bar is immaterial to the consideration of this question. We must assume he was, as they were refused the opportunity of proving the fact. It did the defendants no good to permit them to set-off their claims against the advancements if they were held criminally liable for the rents. Land-owners are justly entitled to the equal protection of the law; but I do not feel *679called upon to change the conjunctive “and” in the statute into the disjunctive “ox,” when it results in putting a man upon the roads for neglecting to pay a debt that he did not owe, and removing a crop that was his own.