State ex rel. Swain v. Creasman

122 S.E.2d 358, 255 N.C. 546, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 643
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 1, 1961
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 122 S.E.2d 358 (State ex rel. Swain v. Creasman) 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
State ex rel. Swain v. Creasman, 122 S.E.2d 358, 255 N.C. 546, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 643 (N.C. 1961).

Opinion

DenNY, J.

Any justice of the peace appointed by the resident judge of a judicial district, after due notice and hearing, may be “removed from office by the resident judge of the superior court of the district in which the county is situated, for misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance or other good cause.” G.S. 7-115.

The evidence and findings of fact by the court below warrant the conclusion that before the respondent was originally appointed a Justice of the Peace for Asheville Township in Buncombe County, North Carolina, in August 1956, Alex P. Digges was the duly elected, qualified and acting Constable for Asheville Township and that he continued to hold such office until 5 December 1960.

The court found as a fact that during the time Alex P. Digges was Constable for Asheville Township, he received a salary from the County of Buncombe each month and that all fees paid for the service of civil process issuing from the several offices of the Justices of the Peace for Asheville Township became the lawful property of Buncombe County; that it was the duty of said Constable to turn said fees over to the Treasurer and Accountant of Buncombe County each month, together with his report of the fees collected.

The court further found that the respondent on or about 25 January 1960, commenced giving all civil process issuing from his office of Justice of the Peace to James E. Dayton, Jr., for service, and paid said Dayton the lawful fees for service of same; that Dayton kept the fees for service of such process for his own personal use and did not pay the same into the Treasury of Buncombe County.

Even so, it is well to note that there is nothing in Chapter 275 of the 1931 Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, or in the amendments thereto, requiring this respondent to pay such fees to Buncombe County or to make any report of the fees paid for service of process to the Treasurer of Buncombe County or to anyone else. Therefore, any failure, if there was any such failure in law, to turn over to the Treasurer of Buncombe County the fees earned by serving process issued by Justices of the Peace in Asheville Township, such failure is not chargeable under the law to the Justice of the Peace who issued such process.

It is true that Section 3, Chapter 275, of the 1931 Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, during the period of time under consideration, required that all civil process issuing out of the office of Justices of the Peace for Asheville Township be delivered to and served by the Constable for Asheville Township or his agent. It is equally true, according to the evidence adduced in the hearing below, that for several years prior to the election and qualification of Herman T. DeWeese as Constable for Asheville Township on 5 December 1960, his predecessor [550]*550in office, Alex P. Digges, had not been available for the service of such process. The fact that the voters of Asheville Township failed to elect a Constable who was ready, able and willing to discharge the duties of that office, cannot be charged to this respondent to any greater extent than to any other citizen and voter of the township.

The record, we think, discloses that a well-nigh intolerable situation existed. However, the question to be determined on this record is not whether Buncombe County has lost money by reason of the use of Special Deputies to serve the processes issued from the office of the Justices of the Peace in Asheville Township, but the question is simply this: Pías this respondent acted wrongfully or in bad faith in doing what he has done in light of the existing situation?

The respondent testified that he discussed the situation with several County officials and that Wayne Roberts was appointed as a Special Deputy Sheriff for the purpose of serving such process. That thereafter he directed his process to Roberts for service and paid to him the fees for such service; that Roberts had turned over all his checks for such service to the County Treasurer and had received the Treasurer’s check each month for an amount equal to the total fees for serving process. Roberts resigned and James E. Dayton, Jr., was appointed to succeed him on 25 January 1960.

According to the affidavit of Roy A. Taylor, admitted in evidence in the hearing below, he had been County Attorney for Buncombe County for ten years prior to 25 June 1960; that in consultation with Sheriff Brown and the Commissioners of Buncombe County, he advised the County Commissioners that they had authority to appoint an additional Deputy Sheriff and to set his salary pursuant to the provisions of the Home Rule Bill, but that fees for service must under the law be paid to the County Accountant. It was agreed that Wayne Roberts be named a Special Deputy to serve process issued by the Justices of the Peace in Asheville Township and that all fees for such service be paid promptly into the office of the County Accountant and that the monthly check to Mr. Roberts at the end of each month should be in an amount equal to the total service fees paid him as set out above. Mr. Taylor did not recall having any negotiations with respect to the appointment of Mr. Dayton.

Laurence E. Brown, Sheriff of Buncombe County, testified that he knew the respondent and that his character is good. That he did not have sufficient regular deputies to serve process issued by the Justices of the Peace; that he knew of the appointment of James E. Dayton, Jr., to serve such process; that Dayton had performed his duties efficiently.

Other witnesses whose character and integrity were not questioned, [551]*551■testified that before the appointment of a Special Deputy Sheriff to serve process issued by Justices of the Peace, “it had been almost impossible to secure service of process, but since his (Dayton’s) appointment service had been prompt and diligent.”

Gordon Ramsey testified that he had been for several years desk officer for the Sheriff of Buncombe County, having the responsibility of receiving legal process directed to the Sheriff for service. That for more than two years prior to 25 January 1960 he had received numerous requests to serve process directed to the Constable of Asheville Township. That during said period he knew of his own knowledge that the incumbent Constable, Alex P. Digges, was not available to serve such process. That he knew of the appointment of James E. Dayton, Jr., as Special Deputy Sheriff to serve process issued by Justices of the Peace in Asheville Township, and that since his appointment all such process had been promptly served.

The respondent further testified that when Mr. Dayton was appointed a Special Deputy Sheriff that he and Dayton went to the office of the County Treasurer and talked with the Treasurer, James C. Garrison; that they were told by the Treasurer that the fees were to be paid directly to Dayton and that it would not be necessary to make any report thereof. That thereafter he directed all process from his office to Dayton and paid him all the fees for serving such process. Dayton likewise testified that the Treasurer of Buncombe County told the respondent to pay him (Dayton) his fees and that it would not be necessary to make any report of such fees.

The Treasurer denied making such an arrangement. He also denied any knowledge of the appointment of Dayton and testified that he had absolutely nothing to do with his appointment. However, when confronted with Defendant’s Exhibit #5, in the form of an affidavit sworn to before a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of Buncombe County on 25 January 1960 by James C.

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

Related

State v. Hockaday
144 S.E.2d 867 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State ex rel. Swain v. Creasman
132 S.E.2d 304 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 S.E.2d 358, 255 N.C. 546, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-swain-v-creasman-nc-1961.