State v. Benthall
Citation | 82 N.C. 664 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Decision Date | 31 January 1880 |
Parties | STATE v. JOHN BENTHALL, JR. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for a Misdemeanor, tried at Fall Term, 1879, of HERTFORD Superior Court, before Gudger, J.
This was a motion to quash a bill of indictment. The bill was found at spring term, 1879, and is as follows: To which indictment the defendant pleaded ““not guilty,” and then moved to quash the bill on the ground that justices of the peace had exclusive jurisdiction of all such offences, and that the superior court had no jurisdiction of this case. The motion was sustained by the court, and Grandy, solicitor for the state, appealed.
Attorney General, for the State .
No counsel for defendant.
The defendant is indicted under section twenty of the act of 1876-'77, ch. 155, in which it is declared that “all persons who are liable for a poll tax and shall wilfully fail to give themselves in, and all persons who own property and wilfully fail to list it within the time allowed, before the list-taker and the county commissioners, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction therefor shall be fined not more than fifty dollars, or imprisoned not more than thirty days.” And it is provided in section seven of the act of 1879, ch. 92, “that justices of the peace shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all criminal matters arising within their counties, where the punishment now or which shall be hereafter prescribed by law, shall not exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for thirty days.”
The last act was ratified on the fourth day of March, 1879, and the bill of indictment found on the third Monday after the fourth Monday in March, 1879. This would seem to settle the question of jurisdiction. The grounds for claiming jurisdiction in the superior court do not appear upon the record, and we are left to conjecture. Possibly the omission of the word “exclusive” in section twenty-seven of article four of the amended constitution, may be held to indicate the intention of the framers of that instrument to authorize the legislature to give concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts, to justices of the peace in criminal cases where the punishment cannot exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for thirty days. However this may be, the twelfth section of the same article of the constitution provides, that “the general assembly shall have no power to deprive...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wilkes
...S.E. 591; State v. Wilson, 84 N.C. 777; State v. Dudley, 83 N.C. 660; State v. Jones, 83 N.C. 657; State v. Craig, 82 N.C. 668; State v. Benthall, 82 N.C. 664. The charges against defendant originated in indictments in the Superior Court of Scotland County. This being true, the Superior Cou......
-
Henderson County v. Smyth
... ... general jurisdiction acts upon a subject which under the ... Constitution or laws of the State is "reserved for the ... exclusive consideration of a different judicial or political ... tribunal". In such cases the exercise of power is ... Burroughs v. McNeill, supra; Branch v. Houston, 44 ... N.C. 85; Israel v. Ivey, 61 N.C. 551; State v ... Benthall, 82 N.C. 664; Noville v. Dew, 94 N.C ... 43; Rogers v. Jenkins, 98 N.C. 129, 3 S.E. 821; ... State v. Miller, 100 N.C. 543, 5 S.E. 925; Short ... ...
-
Rogers v. Jenkins
...cannot be waived, and the objection may be taken at any time. Tucker v. Baker, 86 N. C. 1; Froelich v. Express Co., 67 K. C. 1; State v. Benthall, 82 N. C. 664; Long v. Jarratt, 94 N. C. 443. The action must be dismissed for want of ...
-
State v. Miller
... ... the court may ex mero motu take notice of it. Neither consent ... nor waiver can give jurisdiction, and the court will not ... proceed where it appears, from the record, that it has no ... authority. State v. Eason, 70 N.C. 88; State v ... Benthall, 82 N.C. 664; Archb. Crim. Pl. 62 ... The ... defendant is indicted as overseer of a public road for a ... violation of the statute (Code, § 1054) which provides that ... "every overseer of a road who shall willfully neglect ... any of the duties imposed on him by law shall ... ...