State v. . Tyndall

Stacy, O. J., after stating the case: While there may be some slight contrariety of expression in the decisions as to whether a forcible trespass may be committed where the entry is peaceable (S. v. Laney, 87 N. C., 535), nevertheless it seems to be settled by the later cases that, *561 although an entry on lands may be effected peaceably and even with the permission of the owner, yet if, after going upon the premises of another, the defendant uses violent and abusive language and commits acts such as are reasonably calculated to intimidate or lead to a breach of the peace, he would be guilty of a forcible trespass, for “It may be, he was not at first a trespasser, but he became such as soon as he put himself in forcible opposition to the prosecutor.” S. v. Wilson, 94 N. C., 839; S. v. Talbot, 97 N. S., 494 ; S. v. Gray, 109 N. C., 790; S. v. Tuttle, 145 N. C., 487 ; S. v. Davenport, 156 N. C., 596 ; S. v. Oxendine, 187 N. C., 658. Under the decisions, we think it is clear that Howard’s conduct amounted to a forcible trespass. Tyndall was also present, with a show of force, or, at least, he was aiding and abetting Howard in what he did. This rendered him guilty too. S. v. Skeen, 182 N. C., 844. If two persons aid and abet each other in the commission of a crime, both being present, both are principals and equally guilty. S. v. Hart, 186 N. C., 582; S. v. Jarrell, 141 N. C., 722. No error.