State v. Brown

• Decision Date: 04 December 1900
• Citation: 37 S.E. 330,127 N.C. 562
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. BROWN.

127 N.C. 562

37 S.E. 330

STATE.

v.BROWN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 4, 1900.

GRAND JURY—STATUTES—TERMS OF COURT-EXTRA—CRIMINAL CASE—QUASHING BILL.

1. Const, art. 4, § 12, providing that there shall be at least two terms of the superior court held in each county every year, is not violated by Acts 1899, c. 593, providing that there shall be two terms which have grand juries, and an extra term without a grand jury.

2. Under Acts 1899, c. 593, providing an extra term of the superior court, without a grand jury, at which only cases against incarcerated defendants should be tried, it was proper to quash an indictment returned by a grand juryat such term, charging defendant, who was in jail, with carrying a concealed weapon, since there could be no legal grand jury, and the extra term could only try criminal cases where indictments had already been found.

Appeal from superior court, Catawba county; Councill, Judge.

Everett Brown was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon at a term of court authorized by chapter 593, Acts 1899. Defendant in apt time moved to quash the indictment upon the ground that, under said act authorizing the said term of court, there should be "no grand jury summoned at this term of the court." Acts 1899, c. 593, | 2. The court sustained the motion and quashed the bill, and the solicitor for the state appealed. Affirmed.

The Attorney General, for the State.

E.B. Cline, W. A. Self, and J. T. Perkins, for appellee.

FURCHES, J. The defendant was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon, upon a bill found at a term of Catawba superior court, begun and held on the fifteenth Monday after the first Monday in August, 1900; and the "case on appeal" states that the defendant had been arrested on a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, and in default of bail had been imprisoned, and was in jail at the time of finding the bill of indictment, and is still in custody; that, upon the bill being returned "A true bill, " the defendant moved to quash the same for want of jurisdiction. The motion was sustained, ' the bill quashed, and the solicitor appealed.

On the argument it was contended that the appeal presented two questions: The coustitutionality of the act of 1899 providing that there should be no grand jury at this term of the court; and, secondly, the construction of the act, as to whether it prohibited the drawing and use of a grand jury at that term. The "case" states that the solicitor for the Tenth judicial district (Catawba being one of the counties composing that district) had demanded of the commissioners that they draw and summon a grand jury for that term, and under this demand they had done so. We suppose the solicitor, in making this demand, thought his action was authorized under the opinion in Mott v. Board, 126 N. C. 866, 36 S. E. 330, and that it was the duty of the commissioners to draw and summon this grand jury. But this question was neither presented nor decided in that case. There the act stripped the superior court of Forsyth county of all criminal jurisdiction. This was held to be unconstitutional, as It took from that court all criminal Jurisdiction. The argument in that case was rested upon the ground that the superior courts were made constitutional courts by adoption; that their jurisdiction was not defined by the constitution, but that they were adopted with the jurisdiction they had at the time of their adoption; and that the constitution required that at least two terms of these courts should be held in each...