Price v. Stanley.

38 S.E. 33, 128 N.C. 38, 1901 N.C. LEXIS 324
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 12, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 38 S.E. 33 (Price v. Stanley.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Price v. Stanley., 38 S.E. 33, 128 N.C. 38, 1901 N.C. LEXIS 324 (N.C. 1901).

Opinion

MONTGOMERY, J.

Tbis action was brought by tbe plaintiff to recover damages from tbe defendant for alleged malicious prosecution. A Justice of tbe Peace of Jobnston County, upon tbe complaint of tbe defendant in tbis action (Stanley), issued a warrant against tbe plaintiff in tbis action (Price), in which Price was charged with wilfully and unlawfully trespassing upon tbe lands of Stanley “by raking up and hauling off manure.” After bearing tbe evidence in the criminal proceedings, the Justice of tibe Peace adjudged that Price was guilty. He, however, bound him over to the nest term of tbe Superior Court of Jobnston County. At that term of the Superior Court a nol pros, was entered by tbe Solicitor in tbe action.

On tbe trial of tbe present action tbe plaintiff testified that tbe defendant bad told him not to go on tbe land again; that tbe fences were all on bis, defendant’s, land, and that be, the plaintiff, must not rake up manure or any more dirt from tbe fence jambs, as all tbe jambs and tbe fence were on defendant’s land. Tbe defendant demurred to tbe plaintiff’s evidence. His Honor sustained tbe demurrer and dismissed the action, and tbe plaintiff appealed.

We think that bis Honor committed no error in tbe matter. Tbe offence charged in tbe warrant was not as clearly set out as it might have been, but on tbe bearing and tbe trial before tbe Justice of tbe Peace tbe evidence made clear any seeming uncertainty of tbe offence charged, and that it was for a misdemeanor of which tbe Justice of tbe Peace bad jurisdiction.

*40 ■ After the judgment of guilty bad been rendered against the plaintiff, the Justice of the Peace bound the plaintiff over to the Superior Court instead of having disposed of the matter by a final judgment. But for this error on the part of the Magistrate the defendant is not responsible. The Justice of the Peace had jurisdiction of the offence which he investigated and tried, and there was a judgment of guilty. If by any means a trial had been afterwards had in the Superior Court, and the same had resulted in an acquittal of the plaintiff Price, nevertheless the conviction in the Justice’s court— a court of competent jurisdiction — established probable cause for the prosecution. Griffis v. Sellars, 19 N. C., 493.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Priddy v. Cook's United Department Store
194 S.E.2d 58 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
Mitchem v. National Weaving Co.
188 S.E. 329 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Abernethy v. . Burns
188 S.E. 97 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Hoffman v. Hastings
178 S.E. 812 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1935)
Overton v. . Combs
108 S.E. 357 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Kennedy v. Burbidge
183 P. 325 (Utah Supreme Court, 1919)
Ex Parte Kemp
80 So. 809 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Hanser v. Bieber
197 S.W. 68 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1917)
Saunders v. Baldwin
71 S.E. 620 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1911)
Smith v. . Thomas
62 S.E. 772 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 S.E. 33, 128 N.C. 38, 1901 N.C. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-stanley-nc-1901.