State v. Ballenger
| Decision Date | 20 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 514,514 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Murray B. BALLENGER. |
Atty. Gen. George B. Patton, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harry W. McGalliard and Samuel Behrends, Jr., for the State.
E. R. Temple, Smithfield, for defendant.
The defendant's first assignment of error is purportedly based on a motion to quash the warrant 'as being contrary to law.' It cannot be ascertained from the record whether or not this motion was actually made and ruled upon either in the Recorder's Court or in the Superior Court. Even so, the argument in this Court with respect to the motion is based on the contention that the Recorder's Court of Benson is not a legally constituted court; that it lacked the power to issue the process which brought the defendant into court, and the court was without jurisdiction to try him, citing State v. Baskerville, 141 N.C. 811, 53 S.E. 742 and Article II, Section 29 of the Constitution of North Carolina.
Subchapter VI of Chapter 7 of the General Statutes constitutes a series of general laws authorizing the establishment by cities and counties of various types of recorders' courts. G.S. § 7-264 originally provided that said Subchapter VI should not apply to certain judicial districts and certain counties including Johnston County. However, Chapter 998 of the Session Laws of 1953 struck out the word 'Johnston' in the list of excepted counties in G.S. § 7-264 and, further, provided specifically that Article 24 of Chapter 7, relating to municipal recorders' courts, should be applicable to municipalities in Johnston County. The defendant contends that the 1953 Act above referred to removing Johnston County from the list of counties excepted from the Article authorizing the establishment by municipalities of municipal recorders' courts, is unconstitutional in that, he argues, it violates that portion of Article II, Section 29, of the Constitution which prohibits the enactment of any local, private, or special act relating to the establishment of courts inferior to the superior court.
The identical question now raised was considered and settled in the case of In re Harris, 183 N.C. 633, 112 S.E. 425. In that case, Iredell County had been excepted from a general law authorizing the creation of inferior courts. Later the General Assembly passed an act eliminating Iredall County from the list of excepted counties. This Court held that the enactment of the statute eliminating a county from a list of those excepted from an earlier General Statute did not violate Article II, Section 29 of the Constitution, and was not a local, private, or special act, but was rather a re-enactment of the general law making it applicable to Iredell County. Consequently, we hold that Chapter 998 of the Session Laws of 1953, eliminating Johnston County from the list of counties excepted in G.S. § 7-264 and making the provisions of Article 24 of Subchapter VI of Chapter 7 of the General Statutes, as amended, applicable to the municipalities in Johnston County, was tantamount to a re-enactment of the general law making it applicable to Johnston County.
The defendant does not contend that the Town Board of Benson failed in any respect to comply with the provisions of Chapter 7 of our General Statutes in establishing the Recorder's Court of Benson. He does contend, however, that the above chapter does not vest any power and authority in any town board to create a court with jurisdiction to try cases which involve criminal acts committed outside its corporate limits.
The jurisdiction of the Recorder's Court of Benson is defined in G.S. § 7-190, which in pertinent part reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Boone v. State
...to a re-enactment of the general law making it applicable" to the county in question rather than a local law, State v. Ballenger , 247 N.C. 216, 217–18, 100 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1957), the 1961 Act appears to have been a general, rather than a local, law.23 The applicability of the analytical a......
-
McIntyre v. Clarkson, 239
...the Recorder's Court of Benson was established in the manner provided in said G.S. Ch. 7, Subchapter VI. In State v. Ballenger, 1957, 247 N.C. 216, 100 S.E.2d 351, 353, Ballenger asserted that the Recorder's Court of Benson was not a legally constituted court, that it lacked the power to is......
-
State v. Rorie, 433
...223 N.C. 610, 27 S.E.2d 623; Miller v. State, 237 N.C. 29, 74 S.E.2d 513; State v. Gales, 240 N.C. 319, 82 S.E.2d 80; State v. Ballenger, 247 N.C. 216, 100 S.E.2d 351; State v. Clyburn, 247 N.C. 455, 101 S.E.2d 295; State v. Perry, 248 N.C. 334, 103 S.E.2d 404; State v. Green, 251 N.C. 40, ......
-
State v. Ballenger, 512.
...raises the same questions with respect to the validity and jurisdiction of the Recorder's Court of Benson that he raised in State v. Ballenger, 100 S.E.2d 351. What we said there is applicable In the trial below we find No error. ...