State v. . R. P. Roseman
State v. . R. P. Roseman
Opinion of the Court
If the defendants were in the [adverse possession of the school house, and bonco ftde claiming it as their own, it certainly was not a crime in them to pull it down. It was, therefore important for them to prove that fact, for the words of the Statute are, “shall unlawfully and wilfully demolish, &e.” Rev. Code, ch. 34, sec. 103.
Upon the supposition that the record which was offered and rejected was not sufficient evidence of title upon an issue directly involving title it was certainly evidence tending to ex *636 plain the possession of the defendants and the tona fides of what they did.
The rejection of this evidence was error, and entitles the defendants to a venire de novo, and therefore it is not necessary that we should consider the other exceptions; as they will probably not arise again.
» There is error. Let this be certified.
Pee Cusiam. Venire de novo.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STATE vs. R. P. ROSEMAN Et Al.
- Cited By
- 8 cases
- Status
- Published