State v. . Edney

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Edney

80 N.C. 360

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 5, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 80 N.C. 360 (State v. . Edney) 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 v. . Edney, 80 N.C. 360 (N.C. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Ashe, J.

There is no bill of exceptions or statement in nature thereof accompanying the record, and it is tbe rule of this court in all state cases when there are such omissions, to affirm the judgment below, unless there are errors in the record. State v. Orrell, Busb., 217.

Upon an examination of this record it appears that the magistrate had no jurisdiction of the case. By the constitution of 1868, Art. IY, § 33, jurisdiction of all criminal matters was given to the justices of the peace, when the punishment did not exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for one month. There was no such limitation to the punishment prescribed for trespasses to land until the legislature, in order to give justices of the peace jurisdiction of that offence, passed the act of 1873-74,amending Bat.Rev., ch. 32, §116, by providing that the punishment for a violation of the provisions of that section should not exceed a fine of fifty dollars or one month’s imprisonment; and so stood the law, unlil the adoption of the amended constitution when “ thirty days ” were substituted in that instrument for the words “ one month ” in the constitution of 1868. But it has been decided that “ month,” as used in that constitution, meant a calendar month, and a calendar month may be more than thirty days; so that if a judgment for a violation of that section should be rendered by a justice of the peace in one of those months which have thirty-one days, the imprisonment might exceed by one day the present constitutional limit to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. State v. Upchurch, 72 N. C., 146.

There is another defect in the proceedings had before the magistrate which is good ground for the arrest of the judgment, but as we are of the opinion for the reasons above given that the magistrate had no jurisdiction, it is needless *362 to advert to it. The judgment is reversed. Let this be certified to the court below that the defendant may be dis-charged.

Error. Reversed.

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

Ashe, J.

There is no bill of exceptions or statement in nature thereof accompanying the record, and it is tbe rule of this court in all state cases when there are such omissions, to affirm the judgment below, unless there are errors in the record. State v. Orrell, Busb., 217.

Upon an examination of this record it appears that the magistrate had no jurisdiction of the case. By the constitution of 1868, Art. IY, § 33, jurisdiction of all criminal matters was given to the justices of the peace, when the punishment did not exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for one month. There was no such limitation to the punishment prescribed for trespasses to land until the legislature, in order to give justices of the peace jurisdiction of that offence, passed the act of 1873-74,amending Bat.Rev., ch. 32, §116, by providing that the punishment for a violation of the provisions of that section should not exceed a fine of fifty dollars or one month’s imprisonment; and so stood the law, unlil the adoption of the amended constitution when “ thirty days ” were substituted in that instrument for the words “ one month ” in the constitution of 1868. But it has been decided that “ month,” as used in that constitution, meant a calendar month, and a calendar month may be more than thirty days; so that if a judgment for a violation of that section should be rendered by a justice of the peace in one of those months which have thirty-one days, the imprisonment might exceed by one day the present constitutional limit to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. State v. Upchurch, 72 N. C., 146.

There is another defect in the proceedings had before the magistrate which is good ground for the arrest of the judgment, but as we are of the opinion for the reasons above given that the magistrate had no jurisdiction, it is needless *362 to advert to it. The judgment is reversed. Let this be certified to the court below that the defendant may be dis-charged.

Error. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 N.C. 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-edney-nc-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack