Lower Creek Drainage Com'rs v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 08 December 1915
• Docket Number: 485.
• Citation: 87 S.E. 112,170 N.C. 324
• Parties: LOWER CREEK DRAINAGE COM'RS v. MITCHELL ET UX.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

87 S.E. 112

170 N.C. 324

LOWER CREEK DRAINAGE COM'RS v. MITCHELL ET UX.

No. 485.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 8, 1915

Appeal from Superior Court, Caldwell County; Adams, Judge.

Action by the Lower Creek Drainage Commissioners against F. B Mitchell and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. No error.

This is an action to recover assessments levied against the defendants in Lower Creek Drainage District in Burke and Caldwell counties. The district was organized under chapter 96, Public Laws of 1909, and it is provided therein that the collector shall collect the assessments by civil action, with the right of appeal to the superior court if the action is instituted before a justice of the peace.

The original act was amended by chapter 46, Public Local Laws of 1911, which granted additional powers including the right to levy larger assessments, and again by chapter 287, Public Local Laws of 1915, the part of the last act which is material to this appeal being as follows:

"Sec 5. That in all actions now pending or hereafter to be instituted for the collection of taxes under the provisions of said chapter ninety-six, Public Laws of one thousand nine hundred and [nine], as amended, the introduction in evidence of a sworn itemized statement of the amount of taxes due to said district, verified by the oath of the collector for the time being, shall be prima facie evidence of the existence and legality of the taxes assessed against the party by such statement charged, as well as the amount of taxes due by such party."

On the trial the plaintiff introduced the itemized statement of the amount of the assessment verified by the oath of the collector, and the defendant excepted. The defendant offered no evidence. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed, assigning the following error:

First Assignment. In that the holding of the act of February 26 1915, constitutional, violates the letter and spirit of the seventh section of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of North Carolina.

Second Assignment. It violates the eighth section of the Bill of Rights.

Third Assignment. It violates the seventeenth section of the Bill of Rights.

Fourth Assignment. It violates the nineteenth section of the Bill of Rights.

Fifth Assignment. It violates the thirty-fifth section of the Bill of Rights.

Sixth Assignment. It violates the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

R. V. Wolfe, W. C. Newland, and Edmund Jones, all of Lenoir, for appellants.

Squires & Whisnant and M. N. Harshaw, both of Lenoir, for appellee.

ALLEN J.

Statutes similar to the one before us, providing for the drainage of lowlands, have been sustained as a valid exercise of legislative power in several recent decisions. Adams v. Joyner, 147 N.C. 83, 60 S.E. 725; Sanderlin v. Luken, 152 N.C. 738, 68 S.E. 225, and others.

It is also settled in this state and elsewhere, that it is permissible for the General Assembly to give to proof of certain facts the effect of establishing prima facie a fact in issue, provided there is a reasonable relation between the two.

The same rule prevails as to civil and criminal causes, and was very fully considered in State v. Barrett, 138 N.C. 630, 50 S.E. 506, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 626. The court in that case quotes from McClain's Criminal Law as follows:

"Laws which prescribe the evidential force of certain facts by enacting that upon proof of such facts a given presumption shall arise or which determine what facts shall constitute a prima facie case against the accused, casting the burden of proof upon him of disproving or rebutting the presumption, are not generally regarded as unconstitutional, even though they may destroy the presumption of innocence. An accused person has no vested right in this or any other presumption or law of evidence or procedure that the lawmaking power cannot, within constitutional limits, deprive him of. The existing rules of evidence may be changed at any time by legislative enactment."

And adds:

"The Legislature of this, and we presume every other state, has

...