State v. . Locust and Pearson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Locust and Pearson

63 N.C. 574

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1869

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 63 N.C. 574 (State v. . Locust and Pearson) 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. . Locust and Pearson, 63 N.C. 574 (N.C. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Dick, J.

A proceeding upon a “ peace warrant ” is now declared to be a criminal action, Code Civil Procedure, sec. 5 subdivis. 2, and it is regulated by a Statute entitled, “Proceedings in criminal cases,” ratified the 10th day of April, 1869. Previous to the ratification of the C. C. P., and the Statute aforesaid, such proceedings were regulated by the common law, and the learning upon the subject will be found in Bacon’s Abridgement, Tit. “Surety of the Peace,” 1st Durn. and East. 696, 13 East. 171; Wilson’s case, 1st Jon., 550.

Such proceedings must be summary and conclusive to render them effectual for the protection of the complainant and to secure the public peace, and generally there is no appeal from the action of the Justice or Judge in the matter.

This case was commenced after the ratification of the C. C. P., and is therefore a criminal action. At the time this case was heard in the Court below, there was no Statute regulating costs in such matters, but provision has since been made in the Statute above referred to, ch. 2, sec. 14. The Justice who acted upon the complaint in this action did not enter up judgment for the costs of the proceedings before him, and the Judge of the Superior Court had no power to render judgment for such costs, State v. Wilson, ubi supra. The rule has since been altered by the Act defining “ Proceedings in criminal cases,” arid the Judges of the Superior Courts are now invested with a large discretion upon questions of eosts in criminal actions. We think his Honor had the power to render a judgment against the defendants for the costs of the *576 Superior Court, and as he did .not exercise his discretion in the matter, on the ground of a want of power, the judgment is overruled, but without costs in this Court against the defendants. We take occasion to remind the Judges of the Superior Courts, that we will not hereafter consider cases sent to this Court upon pro forma judgments, as this Court is entitled to the benefit of their well considered opinions upon questions of law, which may arise in such cases.

Let this opinion be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

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

Dick, J.

A proceeding upon a “ peace warrant ” is now declared to be a criminal action, Code Civil Procedure, sec. 5 subdivis. 2, and it is regulated by a Statute entitled, “Proceedings in criminal cases,” ratified the 10th day of April, 1869. Previous to the ratification of the C. C. P., and the Statute aforesaid, such proceedings were regulated by the common law, and the learning upon the subject will be found in Bacon’s Abridgement, Tit. “Surety of the Peace,” 1st Durn. and East. 696, 13 East. 171; Wilson’s case, 1st Jon., 550.

Such proceedings must be summary and conclusive to render them effectual for the protection of the complainant and to secure the public peace, and generally there is no appeal from the action of the Justice or Judge in the matter.

This case was commenced after the ratification of the C. C. P., and is therefore a criminal action. At the time this case was heard in the Court below, there was no Statute regulating costs in such matters, but provision has since been made in the Statute above referred to, ch. 2, sec. 14. The Justice who acted upon the complaint in this action did not enter up judgment for the costs of the proceedings before him, and the Judge of the Superior Court had no power to render judgment for such costs, State v. Wilson, ubi supra. The rule has since been altered by the Act defining “ Proceedings in criminal cases,” arid the Judges of the Superior Courts are now invested with a large discretion upon questions of eosts in criminal actions. We think his Honor had the power to render a judgment against the defendants for the costs of the *576 Superior Court, and as he did .not exercise his discretion in the matter, on the ground of a want of power, the judgment is overruled, but without costs in this Court against the defendants. We take occasion to remind the Judges of the Superior Courts, that we will not hereafter consider cases sent to this Court upon pro forma judgments, as this Court is entitled to the benefit of their well considered opinions upon questions of law, which may arise in such cases.

Let this opinion be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.C. 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-locust-and-pearson-nc-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack