State v. . Reaves

85 N.C. 553

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: October 5, 1881
• Status: Published

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

After the rendering of the verdict, a motion in arrest of judgment was submitted on the ground of a want of jurisdiction in the court over the minor misdemeanor included in the charge, it appearing in evidence that the assault was made within six months preceding the finding of the bill, and was not attended with serious damage. The testimony heard by the jury, it is stated, did not show that any serious injury had been inflicted upon the person of the prosecutrix.

The restricted original jurisdiction conferred upon the superior, inferior and criminal courts over inferior misdemeanors by the act of 1879, ch. 92, defining “criminal jurisdiction of justices of the peace,” has been enlarged by the amend-atory act of 1881, ch. 210, and they may now take original cognizance “ of all offences whereof exclusive jurisdiction is given to justices of the peace, if some justice of the peace-shall not within six months after the commission of the offence have proceeded to take official cognizance of the same.”

The only objection then. which can now be taken to the exercise of original jurisdiction over offences committed to the cognizance of a justice, is, that the prosecution originated in the superior and other specified courts before the expiration of six months after their perpetration, and this is matter of defence upon the trial before the jury of the plea of not guilty. State v. Moore, 82 N. C., 659; State v. Hooper, Ib., 663; State v. Taylor, 83 N. C., 601; State v. Berry, Ib., 603.

But we do not interpret the statute which suspends the exercise of the admitted jurisdiction over these inferior of-fences for a limited period, in order that they may be brought before a justice for adjudication and punishment, as prohibiting the court from proceeding to judgment upon a criminal charge exclusively committed to it, where the verdict acquits of the higher and convicts of the subordinate included criminal act. Having acquired cognizance of the im puted crime, the court may proceed to dispose of the subordinate misdemeanor, of which it could not have taken jurisdiction as a distinct substantive offence, until after the lapse of the specified time without judicial action commenced before a justice.

It is not a case of denied jurisdiction, but a suspension of its exercise in an original proceeding; and in our opinion the legislation was not intended to arrest further proceedings when the assumed jurisdiction was rightful, and neither offence is outside of that jurisdiction ultimately.

There have been several adjudications warranting a verdict which finds a defendant charged with an assault with intent to commit rape, guilty of an assault only. State v. Slagle, 82 N. C., 653; State v. Watts, Ib., 656; State v. Perkins, Ib., 681.

There is nothing that we discover in the bill to sustain the motion to arrest the judgment.

There is no error, and this will be certified to the end that the court proceed to judgment.

No error. Affirmed