The mere use of a way for twenty years by persons generally, for vehicles or traveling on foot, does not constitute it a public highway, nor in the absence of evidence of condemnation or actual dedication does the fact that the public have exerted control over it for any less period than twenty years tend to show that an easement has been acquired by user, which raises the presumption of a grant. Wolf, 112-889.

TAKING FOR STREET NO ABANDONMENT.-A road worked and used by the public as a highway for forty years is not abandoned by being taken in an incorporated town and kept up by the town as a public highway by taxation, and an indictment will lie for the obstruction thereof. Holleman, 130–658. ESTABLISHED UNDER ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT.-If a road be established by an erroneous judgment it will be a nuisance to obstruct it. Spainhour, 19

(2 D. & B.), 547.

PRESUMPTION OF DEDICATION.-If a road has been used as a public highway for twenty years there is a presumption of its dedication as a public highway. Cardwell, 44-245.

HOW USER SHOWN.-The best evidence of user by the public of a highway is the fact that the proper authorities have appointed overseers and designated hands to work and assumed responsibility of keeping it in repair. Fisher, 117-733.

BURDEN ON STATE TO SHOW USER.-Where the public claims title to the easement in a highway by user, the burden is on the state to show title by adverse possession. Fisher, 117—733.

USER MUST BE ADVERSE.-The user of the road by the public must be adversary and of right, otherwise it is no crime to obstruct it. Stewart, 91-566.

PUBLIC SQUARE AND COMMON HIGHWAY.-An indictment which charges the obstruction of "a certain public square and common public highway there situate," giving the location and bounds of the square, and alleging that citizens of the state have long been accustomed to pass and repass across the same, and that defendant obstructed the same by "digging holes in, and erecting a line of posts in, upon and across said public square and common public highway," is not fatally defective for redundancy as charging a nuisance in obstructing a public common and an obstruction to a public highway, since a public square around a court-house is a public highway. Eastman, 109-785.

A public square used by the public as a means of access to the court-house and other public buildings, is substantially a public highway. Long, 94896.

Where defendant and those under whom he claims has been in open and adverse possession of a part of a public square in a town, covered by his store, for twenty years prior to the indictment, such non-user extinguishes the public easement, and defendant can not be convicted. Ib.

DRIVING ON SIDEWALK.-One who willfully 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, 121610.

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 Ired.), 318. A person who erects a fence across a public road attempted to be discontinued by a void proceeding is indictable. Shuford, 28 (6 Ired.), 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 cross it on defendant's premises, and defendant replaces these fences, thereby obstructing the road, he is guilty, though the damages as

sessed 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. Melver, 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.

ADOPTION OF SPECIAL ROAD LAW.-It is competent for the legislature to provide a special road law for a county, several counties, a township or other locality, and to make the adoption of such law depend upon the acceptance or rejection thereof by the people, or the landowners, or by the official board of the county, township or locality. Holloman, 139–642.

HOW KEPT IN REPAIR.-The legislature may provide that the public roads shall be kept in repair by labor, taxation, by funds raised from license taxes, or by a mixture of the different methods. Holloman, 139–648.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY ADOPT.-The adoption of a road law may be made dependent upon the action of the board of supervisors. Holloman, 139-643.

Sec. 914 (3776). Churches, way to.

If any person shall maliciously stop up or obstruct the way leading to any place of public worship, or to any spring or well commonly used by the congregation, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days.

Code, s. 3669; R. C., c. 97, s. 5; 1785, c. 241.

Sec. 915 (3769). Barbed-wire fences along.

If any person shall erect or maintain a barbed-wire fence along any public road or highway, and within ten yards thereof, without putting a railing or plank on top of said fence not less than three inches in width, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined or imprisoned at the discretion of the court. This section shall apply to the counties of Rowan, Swain, Haywood, Catawba, Greene, Richmond, Stokes, Rutherford, Forsyth, Yadkin, Brunswick, Durham, Wilkes, Stanly, Cumberland, Iredell, Macon and Rockingham.

1895, c. 65; 1899, c. 43; 1899, c. 225; 1905, c. 220.

Sec. 916 (3770). Board of supervisors failing to make reports.

If any board of supervisors shall fail to make any report required by law, or to discharge any duty imposed by law, the members thereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The indictment may be against the board jointly, or against the justices composing said board, or any one or more of them severally.

Code, s. 2024; 1879, c. 82, s. 10.

Sec. 917 (2725). Who liable.

All able-bodied male persons between the ages of eighteen years and forty-five years (between twenty-one years and forty-five years in Columbus and Tyrrell counties) shall be required under the provisions of this chapter to work on the public roads, except the members of the board of supervisors of public roads; but no person shall be compelled to work more than six days in any one year, except in case of damage resulting from a storm: Provided, that ten days instead of six days shall be the limit as to the counties west of the Blue Ridge.

Code, s. 2017; 1879, c. 82, s. 4; 1880, c. 30, s. 2; 1826, c. 26; 1905, c. 136.

Sec. 918 (2726). Who exempt; how exemption obtained.

No person between the ages prescribed shall be exempt from working upon the public roads, except such as shall be exempted by the general assembly, or by the board of supervisors of the township, on account of personal infirmity, of which the said board shall be the sole judge.

Code, s. 2018; R. C., c. 101, s. 12; 1784, c. 227, ss. 8, 9; 1826, c. 26, ss. 1, 2.

Sec. 919. Students exempt.

No male student attending any school, college or academy or other institution of learning in North Carolina shall be compelled to perform any road duty or to work on any street or road, or to furnish any person to work in his place, or to pay any sum or sums of money in lieu of work on said road or roads, on or for any road or street in any county, city, town or township in which said school, college, academy or other institution of learning is located: Provided, however, that this act shall not exempt any said male person from any road duty or road tax when such student is a bona fide and legally qualified resident of said district and was such prior to becoming a student of said institution of learning.

1907, c. 945.

ROBBERY.

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 TRESSPASS 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. Sowle, 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.