This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P, a 15-year old boy, and two other boys visited D's garden patch adjacent to the road for the purpose of stealing melons. They did the same thing again the next night. Two of the boys entered the melon patch, and P went to the southeast corner of the property. P was in the highway right of way close to the fence. D came out of his house with a rifle in his hand, called to the boys to get out. D fired his gun toward the southwest corner of the property to scare them. P was struck in the back of the left leg, halfway between the ankle and the knee, breaking the bones and coming out of the front of the leg. P sued D for damages. A considerable quantity of melons was taken or destroyed, and the fence between the patch and the road was damaged. The court found that P had committed an unlawful act against D. The trial court found that D 'acted reasonably and prudently to prevent any further trespassing against his land and crops' and his actions 'did not constitute the use of unnecessary force, malice or willful or specific intent to injure' D or anyone else but was only 'such force as was reasonably necessary to eject' the trespassers from the property. The court found for D and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.