
    STATE v. R. C. TOWNSEND.
    (Filed 3 November, 1915.)
    Landlord and Tenant — Criminal Law — Ungathered Crops — Indictment—Interpretation of Statutes.
    The Landlord and Tenant Act, Revisal, sec. 1993, vests the constructive possession of the crop in the landlord to protect his liens, and the actual possession in the tenant to subserve the interests of both in the cultivation and gathering of the crops, and under the construction of Revisal, sec. 3665, making it an indictable offense for the -tenant to remove the crops under certain conditions, with see. 3664, making it indictable for the landlord to unlawfully, etc., seize the crops when nothing is due him, it is Held, that the word “crops” includes those ungathered as well as gathered, and an indictment for that the landlord seized the “corn growing and unmatured in the field,” etc., charges an indictable offense, when it is otherwise sufficient.
    Appeal by tbe State from Whedbee, J., at July Term, 1915, of ROBESON.
    Tbe defendant, a landlord, is charged with unlawfully seizing tbe crop of bis tenant, tbe material parts of tbe warrant alleging that he “did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and without process of law, and unjustly, seize tbe growing ciops and tbe premises thereof, of him, tbe said Charlie Lowrie, bis tenant, when there was nothing due him, tbe said R. 0. Townsend, by him, tbe said tenant, Charlie Lowrie, said crops being corn and cotton growing and unmatured in tbe field at tbe time of such seizure, contrary to law, and against tbe peace and dignity of tbe State.”
    Tbe defendant demurred to tbe warrant, contending that it charged no indictable offen.se. Tbe demurrer was sustained, and tbe State appealed.
    
      Attorney-General Bichett and Assistant Attorney-General Calvert for the State.
    
    
      No counsel for defendant.
    
   ' Allek, J.

Tbe Landlord and Tenant Act (Rev., sec. 1993) vests the constructive possession of the crops in tbe landlord until bis rents and liens are paid, but tbe actual possession is in tbe tenant. Jordan v. Bryan, 103 N. C., 59. Tbe constructive possession is to insure tbe performance of tbe rental contract by tbe tenant and to enable tbe landlord to collect bis rents and advancements, and tbe actual possession is given to tbe tenant for tbe benefit of both, as otherwise tbe crops could not be cultivated and gathered. Tbe General Assembly having established this relation, and having fixed the rights of tbe parties, has undertaken to compel each to deal justly by tbe other.

The tenant who removes any part of the crop from tbe land without tbe consent of tbe landlord and without giving him five days notice, and before satisfying all liens, is indictable (Eey., sec. 3665), as is the landlord wbo unlawfully and knowingly and without process of law unjustly seizes the crops when there is nothing due him (Eev., sec. 3664). In all these statutes the word “crop” is .used, not “gathered” or “un-gathered crop,” and the same meaning must be given to it. throughout. If the word does not embrace ungathered crops when imposing the prohibition upon the landlord, it can mean no more when the tenant is forbidden to remove the crop, and a statute intended to give ample protection to both has but little effect. It is comprehensive enough to include both gathered and ungathered crops, and when the purpose of the General Assembly is considered we must conclude it was so intended.

In Dana v. Lewis, 2 R. I., 492, it was held that “a bequest of crops included growing crops, as the word crops may mean either gathered or growing crops”; and in Ins. Co. v. Dehaven, 5 Atl., 65, that the language in a policy of insurance on “stock crops and fanning implements” was “broad enough to cover growing crops.”

We are, therefore, of opinion his Honor was in error in sustaining the demurrer to the warrant, which follows the words of the statute.

Eeversed.  