State v. . Patterson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Patterson

31 S.E.2d 380, 224 N.C. 471, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 399

DecidedSeptember 20, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 31 S.E.2d 380 (State v. . Patterson) 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. . Patterson, 31 S.E.2d 380, 224 N.C. 471, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 399 (N.C. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

ScheNCk, J.

We are constrained to hold that the order directing that the State pay the expense of returning the defendant from Ohio to North Carolina was unauthorized in this case and therefore in error. ■

It appears in the record that no requisition was applied for and none issued by His Excellency, the G-overnor, and that the defendant Patterson waived extradition and voluntarily returned with the sheriff to North Carolina.

*473 Tbe statute, C. S., 4556 (24) (now G. S., 15-78), mentioned in tbe order as authority for its issuance refers to tbe payment of expenses in cases of extradition, and no others. It reads in part: “When tbe crime shall be a felony, tbe expenses shall be paid out of tbe state treasury, on certificate of tbe governor and warrant of tbe auditor; and in all other cases they shall be paid out of tbe county treasury in tbe county wherein tbe crime is alleged to have been committed. . . .” There was no certificate of tbe Governor for tbe reason that tbe case was never before His Excellency.

G. S., 6-1 (C. S., 1225), which sets forth tbe items allowed as costs, enumerates: “actual disbursements for fees to tbe officers, witnesses, and other persons entitled to receive tbe same,” and does not include expenses for returning defendants to this State from points without tbe State.

Tbe order appealed from by tbe State, being without authority, was in error, and therefore, is

Eeversed.

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

ScheNCk, J.

We are constrained to hold that the order directing that the State pay the expense of returning the defendant from Ohio to North Carolina was unauthorized in this case and therefore in error. ■

It appears in the record that no requisition was applied for and none issued by His Excellency, the G-overnor, and that the defendant Patterson waived extradition and voluntarily returned with the sheriff to North Carolina.

*473 Tbe statute, C. S., 4556 (24) (now G. S., 15-78), mentioned in tbe order as authority for its issuance refers to tbe payment of expenses in cases of extradition, and no others. It reads in part: “When tbe crime shall be a felony, tbe expenses shall be paid out of tbe state treasury, on certificate of tbe governor and warrant of tbe auditor; and in all other cases they shall be paid out of tbe county treasury in tbe county wherein tbe crime is alleged to have been committed. . . .” There was no certificate of tbe Governor for tbe reason that tbe case was never before His Excellency.

G. S., 6-1 (C. S., 1225), which sets forth tbe items allowed as costs, enumerates: “actual disbursements for fees to tbe officers, witnesses, and other persons entitled to receive tbe same,” and does not include expenses for returning defendants to this State from points without tbe State.

Tbe order appealed from by tbe State, being without authority, was in error, and therefore, is

Eeversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 S.E.2d 380, 224 N.C. 471, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-patterson-nc-1944.