State v. . Hamilton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Hamilton

10 S.E. 854, 106 N.C. 660

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 10 S.E. 854 (State v. . Hamilton) 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. . Hamilton, 10 S.E. 854, 106 N.C. 660 (N.C. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Claek, J.:

The Code, § 737, empowers the Court trying the cause to determine at any stage of a criminal proceeding who the prosecutor is, and tax him with the costs, if such Court shall be of opinion that there was not reasonable ground for the prosecution, or'that it was not required by the public interest. Section 788 empowers the Court to imprison the prosecutor for non-payment of costs, if it shall adjudge that the prosecution was frivolous and malicious. This is held constitutional. State v. Cannady, 78 N. C., 539. These findings of fact by the Court below have been repeatedly held conclusive and not revipwable by this Court on appeal. State v. Adams, 85 N. C., 560; State v. Owens, 87 N. C., 565; State v. Dunn, 95 N. C., 697. Though such findings of fact by a Justice of the Peace are reviewable by the Superior Court on appeal. State v. Murdock, 85 N. C., 598; State v. Powell, 86 N. C., 640.

When the prosecutor is marked as such on the bill before indictment found, he can be taxed with the costs without notice and though absent. State v. Spencer, 81 N. C., 519; State v. Horton, 89 N. C., 581. But an order to mark any one as prosecutor after indictment found cannot be made without his consent, unless on notice. State v. Crosset, 81 N. C., 579. It is sufficient, however, if the motion is made in open Court, and the party is present. State v. Hughes, 83 N. C., 665; State v. Norwood, 84 N. C., 794. The order may be made on motion of defendant’s counsel, at the instance of the Solicitor, or by the Court ex mero motv,. State v. Adams, 85 N. C., 560. In the present case, the prosecutor was present in Court, testified in the case on trial, and also in the *662 investigation of facts upon the motion to mark him as prosecutor and to tax him with the costs, and the motion was made by defendant’s counsel, the Solicitor having submitted to a verdict of not guilty upon appellant’s testimony.

Neither the judgment that Jones was prosecutor, and that the prosecution was “frivolousand not required by the public interest,” nor that ordering him to pay the ‘costs, are reviewable. Like other findings of fact by the Judge below, such findings are final and conclusive.

No error.

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

Claek, J.:

The Code, § 737, empowers the Court trying the cause to determine at any stage of a criminal proceeding who the prosecutor is, and tax him with the costs, if such Court shall be of opinion that there was not reasonable ground for the prosecution, or'that it was not required by the public interest. Section 788 empowers the Court to imprison the prosecutor for non-payment of costs, if it shall adjudge that the prosecution was frivolous and malicious. This is held constitutional. State v. Cannady, 78 N. C., 539. These findings of fact by the Court below have been repeatedly held conclusive and not revipwable by this Court on appeal. State v. Adams, 85 N. C., 560; State v. Owens, 87 N. C., 565; State v. Dunn, 95 N. C., 697. Though such findings of fact by a Justice of the Peace are reviewable by the Superior Court on appeal. State v. Murdock, 85 N. C., 598; State v. Powell, 86 N. C., 640.

When the prosecutor is marked as such on the bill before indictment found, he can be taxed with the costs without notice and though absent. State v. Spencer, 81 N. C., 519; State v. Horton, 89 N. C., 581. But an order to mark any one as prosecutor after indictment found cannot be made without his consent, unless on notice. State v. Crosset, 81 N. C., 579. It is sufficient, however, if the motion is made in open Court, and the party is present. State v. Hughes, 83 N. C., 665; State v. Norwood, 84 N. C., 794. The order may be made on motion of defendant’s counsel, at the instance of the Solicitor, or by the Court ex mero motv,. State v. Adams, 85 N. C., 560. In the present case, the prosecutor was present in Court, testified in the case on trial, and also in the *662 investigation of facts upon the motion to mark him as prosecutor and to tax him with the costs, and the motion was made by defendant’s counsel, the Solicitor having submitted to a verdict of not guilty upon appellant’s testimony.

Neither the judgment that Jones was prosecutor, and that the prosecution was “frivolousand not required by the public interest,” nor that ordering him to pay the ‘costs, are reviewable. Like other findings of fact by the Judge below, such findings are final and conclusive.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E. 854, 106 N.C. 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hamilton-nc-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack