State v. . Darr

63 N.C. 516

Opinion

Reade, J.

The offence charged, larceny, was one “of an inferior nature” within the meaning of the statute, Rev. Code-ch. 85 sec. 37, which authorizes the Court to make the prosecutor pay the costs where the defendant is acquitted, and the-prosecution “appears to be frivolous or malicious.” State v. Lumbrick, 1 Car. L. R. 543.

It appeared to his Honor that “there was not reasonable ground for the prosecution, and that it was not required by the public interest, and was ‘frivolous and malicious.’ ” If then the case were governed by the law as it stood when the offense was charged to have been committed, or when the-indictment was found, as was contended for by the prosecutor,, he might properly be made to pay the costs. But the case-falls under the C. C. P. § 560, which was in force at the time-of the trial, and which provides that in any criminal action,, for whatever grade of offense, the prosecutor, if one is marked on the bill, may be ordered to pay costs, “when the Judge-shall certify that there was not reasonable ground for the prosecution, and that it was not required by. the public interest” State v. Lupton, at this term. It was therefore proper in; this case to make the defendant, who was the prosecutor in the case in which the order was made, pay the costs. There was-no error in the-judgment appealed from.

This will be certified, &c.

Per Curiaii. Judgment affirmed.