DRIVING ON SIDEWALK.-Ore who wilfully drives his team along a sidewalk in a town, in violation of a town ordinance, can not excuse himself on the ground that the condition of the street was such at that place that his team could not pull the load without going on the sidewalk, and that there was no other possible way by which he could haul his load to the depot, especially when he knew of the condition of the street before he started, and there is no evidence that he was in danger of injury to body or health which could not be averted except by driving on the sidewalk. Brown, 109-802.

RAILROAD COMPANIES.-A railroad company is guilty of obstructing a public highway if it permits its engines and cars to remain thereon longer than is reasonably necessary for their safe-crossing. W. N. C. R. R. Co., 95-602.

TITLE DOES NOT PASS-ONLY AN EASEMENT.-The laying off a highway over one's land does not deprive him of the freehold covered by the road. The public acquire only an easement, the right to pass and repass. Howell, 90-705.

REVOCATION OF OFFER TO DEDICATE.-Where the owner of land throws open a street to the use of the public by platting the ground of which it forms a part as an addition to the city, the fact that he refused, subsequently, to grant the city a right of way over the alleged street, after the city limits were extended, and that then the city proceeded to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire the same, sufficiently shows a revocation of the offer. Fisher, 117—733.

WHAT CONSTITUTES PUBLIC ROAD.-The board of commissioners ordered the construction of a public road, laid it out, appointed an overseer and assigned him hands to construct the road: Held, that such order constituted in the eye of the law a public road, and the hands are bound to aid in constructing and building the road, and for failure to do so were indictable. Joyce, 121-610.

There may be a public road de facto, and the only person who can question the right to such a road is the owner of the land. Marble, 26 (4 Ire.), 318.

A person who erects a fence across a public road attempted to be discontinued by a void proceeding is indictable. Shuford, 28 (6 Ire.), 162. ACCEPTANCE. Where an owner of land adjoining the city had offered to dedicate certain parts of it to the public as a highway, by platting the same as an addition to the city, an entry upon the street by a street railway company, under a license from the city, after the owner had recalled his offer, can not operate as an acceptance thereof by the city. Fisher, 117-733.

In order to acquire title to a street as laid out by the owner of land in an addition to a town, there must be an acceptance before the owner revokes the offer. Fisher, 117-733.

ORDER FINAL.-The judgment of a board of commissioners ordering the laying out of a public road is final until reversed, is binding upon all citizens of a county, and can not be collaterally attacked. Joyce, 121-610.

IRREGULARITIES IN ESTABLISHING ROAD.-A road laid off by commissioners under an order of a board of township trustees, who appoints an overseer of the same, is a public highway, and one indicted for obstructing such highway can not justify by showing irregularities in the proceeding to establish it. Distinguishing State v. Spainhour, 2 Dev. & Bat., 547. Davis, 68-297.

On indictment for obstructing a public road, the fact that the petition for its establishment was addressed to the board of supervisors, though

the road was laid off by the board of commissioners, does not render the proceedings void. Smith, 100-550.

OVERSEER AND HANDS NOT NECESSARY.-A request for an instruction that to "constitute a public highway it must be a public charge, and must of necessity have an overseer and hands to work it," is properly denied since such facts are simply the incidents of a public highway. Smith, 100--550.

PUBLIC ROAD DE FACTO SUFFICIENT.-A person may be convicted for obstructing a road which has been established by an erroneous judgment; it is enough that the way obstructed is a public road de facto. Spainhour, 19 (2 D. & B.), 547.

PAYMENT OF DAMAGES NOT NECESSARY BEFORE INDICTMENT.-When defendant is appointed overseer of a public road regularly established, but fails to open the road, but his successor does open it, and in so doing removes the fences which crosses it on defendant's premises, and defendant replaces these fences, thereby obstructing the road, he is guilty, though the damages assessed to defendant had not been paid, since it is not essential that actual payment must precede the act of taking of private property for public uses. McIver, 88-686.

PROCESSION.--Members of a procession celebrating any particular day or event are not indictable for obstructing the streets of a town, if the procession is lawful and the streets are not obstructed more than is ordinarily the case under such circumstances. Hughes, 72-25.

VENDEE OF LAND OVER WHICH ROAD RUNS NOT INDICTABLE, WHEN.-Where the proprietor of land through which a road passes and across which he has unlawfully erected a gate, sells the land to another who never actually enters into the land but leases it to others who keep up the gate, the vendee is not indictable for a continuance of the obstruction, but those who keep it up are, or the person who first erected it may be indicted. Pollok, 26 (4 Ired.), 303.

Sec. 574 (2022). Overseers to report all moneys collected to supervisors; failure to discharge duties, misdemeanor; duty of chairman of board of supervisors. 1879, c. 82, s. 8.

The said overseers shall at the meeting of the supervisors in February make a report of all moneys collected by them from parties excused from work on the road for the preceding year, with a statement as to how the same was expended. If any oversecr shall fail to discharge any one of the duties imposed by this chapter he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be fined seven dollars, and in default of payment of fine and cost be imprisoned not exceeding five days. In case of failure of any overseer to make any report to the board of supervisors of public roads of his township, as provided in this chapter, it shall be the duty of the chairman of such board immediately upon such failure to make a sworn statement of the fact before some justice of the peace of an adjoining township, who shall immediately issue his warrant for the arrest of the said overseer, and proceed to try him for the offence.

Sec. 575 (2024). Board of supervisors to report to superior court; clerk to deliver report to foreman of grand jury; misdemeanor; punishment. 1879, c. 82, s. 10.

The board of supervisors shall annually make report to the first term of the superior court of their county after the first Monday in August of the condition of the roads of their township, and if the meetings provided for in this chapter have been held by said board, the judge holding such term of the superior court shall after his charge to the grand jury and before they shall retire to their room call upon the clerk of the court for such reports, and they shall then and there be delivered to the foreman of the grand jury; and if any board of supervisors shall fail to make said report or to dischrage any other duty imposed by this chapter, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, in the discretion of the court, and the indictment may be either against the board of supervisors, or against the individuals composing it as justices of the peace.

Sec. 576 (2030). Sign-posts at forks of roads to be set up by overseers; penalty for neglect. R. C., c. 101, s. 18. 1784, c. 227, s. 11. 1812, c. 846. Overseers shall cause to be set up, at the forks of their respective roads, a post or posts, with arms pointing the way of each road, with plain and durable directions to the most public places to which they lead, and with the number of miles from that place as near as can be computed; and every overseer who shall, for ten days after notice of his appointment, neglect to do so and to keep the same in repair, shall forfeit and pay for every such neglect ten dollars.

Sec. 578 (2031). On persons removing or defacing posts or mile-marks. R. C., c. 101, s. 19. 1784, c. 227, s. II. 1812, c. 846.

Any person, who shall wantonly remove, knock down, or deface the said posts, arms, or any mile-mark, shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay to the state ten dollars, and be guilty of a misde

meanor.

Sec. 579 (2054). Railroad companies, etc., to keep bridges over county roads; penalty for failure. R. C., c. 101, s. 35. 1838, c. 5, ss. 1, 2, 3, 4. Railroad, plank road and turnpike companies, each, shall keep up, at their own expense, all bridges on or over county, or incorporated roads, which they have severally made it necessary to be built, in establishing their respective roads; and on failure to do so, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined; and execution may issue for fine and costs; and shall forfeit and pay twenty-five dollars to any person who may sue for the same.

Sec. 580 (2057). May be changed or discontinued and gates or bars erected, etc.; penalty for injuring them. R. C., c. 101, s. 38. 1798, c. 508, ss. I, 2, 3. 1834, c. 16, s. 1. 1887, c. 266.

Cartways, laid off according to the provisions of this chapter, may be changed or discontinued upon application by any person concerned, under the same rules of proceeding as they may be first laid off, and upon such terms as to the board of supervisors shall seem equitable and just. And any person through whose land a cartway may pass, may erect and keep in good repair convenient gates across the same; and if any person shall leave open, break down, or otherwise injure such gates or bars, he shall forfeit and pay, for every such offence, ten dollars to the person erecting the same or his assigns of the land; and if the offence shall be maliciously done, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Sec. 581. High water marks, duty of overseers to establish. 1889, c. 517.

It shall be the duty of the overseers of roads to establish high water marks or signals on both sides of any river, creek or stream which is used as a ford for a public highway, and to permanently fix the same.

Any overseer failing to carry out the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

ROBBERY.

Sec. 582 (1201). On conviction for robbing or stealing, the person robbed is entitled to the restitution of his property. R. C., c. 35, s. 34. 21 Hen. VIII. c. 11.

Upon the conviction of any felon for robbing or stealing any money, goods, chattels, or other estate of any description whatever, the person from whom such goods, money, chattels, or other estate were robbed or stolen, shall be entitled to restitution thereof; and the court may award restitution of the articles so robbed or stolen, and make all such orders and issue such writs of restitution or otherwise, as may be necessary for that purpose.

WHAT CONSTITUTES ROBBERY.-Defendant, on overtaking the prosecutor and his brother on the highway, accused them of robbing him in South Carolina which they denied, and took hold of the brother and told him he had to go back to South Carolina with him, but the brother refused to go. "Defendant then demanded our money, and said he intended to have our money or our lives, and if we attempted to go on he would shoot us."

He was told they had no money, and then said if they would give him one dollar he would let them go, and being still refused got a fence rail and put it across the road in front of prosecutor's wagon, and told them if they came up to it he would shoot out their hearts. The prosecutor then told him if he would let them go he would give him the dollar and handed it to him, but defendant, after holding it a minute, threw it down and demanded seven dollars. The prosecutor testified that he gave the defendant the dollar because he was afraid of him: Held, that the court properly instructed the jury that if defendant made such a demonstration of force as to put the prosecutor in fear, and under that fear the prosecutor gave him the dollar, and he kept it only one minute, he was guilty. Burke, 73-83.

Where defendant entices a boy of twelve years of age into the woods near a highway, knocks him down with a club and takes his money, he is guilty of robbery. Bradburn, 104-881.

One who by violence robs another of money, and afterwards throws it down and refuses to carry it off, is guilty. Burke, 73-83.

The kind and value of the property taken is immaterial; force or fear is the main element in robbery. Burke, 73-83.

WHAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ROBBERY.-The evidence was that the prosecutor had shown his money in a barroom where defendant was; that when he started home defendant and another followed him and defendant pretended to help him on his horse, and put his hand in his pocket and was accused of trying to rob him; that prosecutor then rode towards home and about one-half mile from town he was struck from behind and rendered unconscious, and, upon regaining consciousness, his money was gone; that across fields it was nearer from the barroom to the place where he was robbed than by the road, and that, when prosecutor started homeward by the road, defendant started across the field, and that next morning tracks which defendant's shoes fitted were found in the road where prosecutor was robbed: Held, that the evidence was not only sufficient to be submitted, but clearly warranted the verdict. Leach, 119-828.

Simply snatching a thing unawares is not robbery; but if there be a struggle to keep it, or any violence done to the person, the taking is robbery. Trexler, 4 (2 Car.), 90 (188).

DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRESPASS AND ROBBERY.-The distinction between forcible trespass and robbery is that in robbery there is a felonious intent, while in forcible trespass there is not. Sowls, 61 (Phil.), 151.

An intent to evade the law is the felonious intent which distinguishes robbery from forcible trespass. This felonious intent, which is found in robbery and larceny, is manifested by concealing from the owner the thing taken, the person who took it. Deal, 64-270.

INDICTMENT.-An allegation that the robbery was committed "in the public highway," is sufficient, without specifying to what points the highway leads. Burke, 73-83.

It is not necessary that the word "steal" should be used in the indictment. Brown, 113-645.

A charge that defendant "did make an assault" and "put in bodily fear and danger of his life," and "then and there reloniously and violently did seize. take and carry away ten dollars in money from the prosecutor," is an explicit allegation of force. Brown, 113-645.

The indictment may charge that the robbery was committed in the highway or near it. Anthony, 29 (7 Ire.), 234.

An allegation that the property was taken from the person and against the will of the owner, feloniously and violently, is sufficient. Cowan, 29 (7 Ire.), 239.