State v. Joyce

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Joyce

28 S.E. 366, 121 N.C. 610

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 S.E. 366 (State v. Joyce) 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. Joyce, 28 S.E. 366, 121 N.C. 610 (N.C. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Faircloth, C. J.:

The defendant stands indicted under The Code, Section 2020, for failing to work a public road. There was an application by certain citizens of Stokes County, including the defendant, made to the County Commissioners to have a public road laid out and established between specified termini in said County. After some irregularity in the proceedings and after due notice, the Board of County"Commissioners ordered said road to belaid out between the specified points, appointed an overseer, assigned hands to the overseer, including the defendant, and ordered the overseer to have the road constructed and put in order. The Board had authority to make the order. Acts, 1889, Ch. 338 and Acts, 1887, Ch. 73. The overseer ordered the road hands who had been assigned to him, including the defendant, to attend on a specified day to construct and work on said road. The defendant refused to attend and work on the ground that, although he was liable to road duty, he could not be required to aid in constructing and building a public road, and.for this refusal he was indicted and convicted.

There was no appeal from the order of the Board of Commissioners above referred to. The Board having jurisdiction of the matter, their judgment was final until reversed, and was binding on the defendant and all citizens of the County and could not be collaterally attacked. State v. Smith, 100 N. C., 550.

When the Board of Commissioners ordered the road to be laid out and constructed as a public County road, *612 appointed an overseer and assigned hands to him to construct the road, and ordered him to have the work done, in the eye of the law it became at once a i>ublic road, and the hands so assigned were as much bound to attend and work as any other road hands in the County, and they could not question the regularity of the proceedings of the Board in the matter, and if they refused to work they are liable under the general law to indictment. The Code, Section 2020; State v. Witherspoon, 75 N C., 222. This would be so at common law, if there was no statutory mode of proceeding. State v. Parker, 91 N. C., 650.

This conclusion obviates the necessity of considering the defendant’s other exceptions.

Affirmed.

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

Faircloth, C. J.:

The defendant stands indicted under The Code, Section 2020, for failing to work a public road. There was an application by certain citizens of Stokes County, including the defendant, made to the County Commissioners to have a public road laid out and established between specified termini in said County. After some irregularity in the proceedings and after due notice, the Board of County"Commissioners ordered said road to belaid out between the specified points, appointed an overseer, assigned hands to the overseer, including the defendant, and ordered the overseer to have the road constructed and put in order. The Board had authority to make the order. Acts, 1889, Ch. 338 and Acts, 1887, Ch. 73. The overseer ordered the road hands who had been assigned to him, including the defendant, to attend on a specified day to construct and work on said road. The defendant refused to attend and work on the ground that, although he was liable to road duty, he could not be required to aid in constructing and building a public road, and.for this refusal he was indicted and convicted.

There was no appeal from the order of the Board of Commissioners above referred to. The Board having jurisdiction of the matter, their judgment was final until reversed, and was binding on the defendant and all citizens of the County and could not be collaterally attacked. State v. Smith, 100 N. C., 550.

When the Board of Commissioners ordered the road to be laid out and constructed as a public County road, *612 appointed an overseer and assigned hands to him to construct the road, and ordered him to have the work done, in the eye of the law it became at once a i>ublic road, and the hands so assigned were as much bound to attend and work as any other road hands in the County, and they could not question the regularity of the proceedings of the Board in the matter, and if they refused to work they are liable under the general law to indictment. The Code, Section 2020; State v. Witherspoon, 75 N C., 222. This would be so at common law, if there was no statutory mode of proceeding. State v. Parker, 91 N. C., 650.

This conclusion obviates the necessity of considering the defendant’s other exceptions.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.E. 366, 121 N.C. 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-joyce-nc-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack