State v. . Taylor

24 S.E. 526, 118 N.C. 1262
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 24 S.E. 526 (State v. . Taylor) 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. . Taylor, 24 S.E. 526, 118 N.C. 1262 (N.C. 1896).

Opinion

*1264 Furches, J:

The appeal is without merit and cannot be sustained. If the justice of the peace had authority to amend the warrant, under Section 908 of The Code, he did not do it. And we know of no power we have, or the superior court had, to compel him to exercise a discretionary power.

But this being a proposition or motion to Strike out the offence charged in the warrant, and to insert another offence, it seems that such amendment was not authorized. State v. Vaughan, 21 N. C., 535; State v. Cook, Ibid, 236.

But the prosecutor had no right to appeal, except it may be as to costs. State v. Powell, 86 N. C., 640.

And while the superior court may review the finding of fact and judgment of justices of the peace on matters of costs in cases like this, the findings of the judge are conclusive upon this Court. And if the judgment of the superior court is in accordance with the facts found, that is also conclusive, upon this Court. State v. Hamilton, 106 N. C., 660.

And as the judge below does not set out the facts upon which he founded his judgment, we must take them as being sufficient to justify his judgment.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Cofield
100 S.E.2d 355 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
State v. Cooke
98 S.E.2d 885 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Tate v. . Clegg
200 S.E. 371 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
State v. . Goff
172 S.E. 407 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
State v. . Mills
106 S.E. 677 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
State v. Bailey
77 S.E. 701 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Coharie Lumber Co. v. Buhmann
75 S.E. 1008 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Pharr v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Railway Co.
132 N.C. 418 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Pharr v. . R. R.
43 S.E. 37 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
State v. . Morgan
26 S.E. 634 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 S.E. 526, 118 N.C. 1262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-nc-1896.