State v. Butts
| Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
| Citation | 91 N.C. 524 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ELIAS BUTTS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for cruelty to animals, tried at Fall Term, 1884, of GREENE Superior Court, before Avery, J.
Defendant appealed.
Altorney-General for the State .
No counsel for defendant.
The transcript of the record in this case is so imperfect, that we are not at liberty to decide the questions of law intended to be presented by the exceptions specified in it.
It does not appear, that a court was held at all by a judge, nor does it appear when or where the proceedings set forth were had, nor that a grand jury was drawn, sworn and charged.
There appears a copy of what purports to be the indictment, to which it is stated the defendant pleaded not guilty; that a jury was sworn and empanneled, that a verdict of guilty was rendered, and there was judgment thereon, and likewise the case for this court upon appeal agreed to by counsel, and the undertaking upon appeal. This is plainly insufficient.
This court is placed in connection with the court from which an appeal comes by means of the appeal taken, or some proper substitute for it. And as to the action, or proceeding in which the appeal was taken, it can learn that a court was held by a judge at a time and place allowed by law, and of the parties to and the subject matter of the action, and the essential proceeding had in it, only from the record. And these things must appear to give this court complete jurisdiction.
Hence it must appear in the record, with reasonable certainty, that a court was held by a judge authorized by law to hold it, and at the place and time prescribed by law. In all cases, it must appear that the court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter; and so much not more, of the record in every case, ought to be sent up as will properly present the exceptions taken, that is, as will show that they were taken, the rulings of the court to which they apply, and how they bear upon the action. This court must be able to see that a court was held and that the action was properly constituted before it. This requirement is not mere matter of form that may be dispensed with. It is an essential part of procedure in every action. And however informal a record may be, these essential requisites must appear in it, else the court cannot proceed to examine the alleged errors, and decide the questions of law sought to be presented. State v. King, 5 Ired., 203; Sudderth v. McCombs, 67 N. C., 353; State v. Jones, 82 N. C., 691; Howell v. Ray, 83 N. C., 558; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfe v. State of North Carolina
...completion of the record on appeal because the record proper (as opposed to the case on appeal) lacked certain primary essentials. State v. Butts, 91 N.C. 524 (record failed to show that a court had been held by a judge or that a grand jury had been drawn, sworn, and charged); State v. Farr......
-
Pruitt v. Wood
... ... court, Waller v. Dudley, 193 N.C. 354, 137 S.E. 149; ... (3) by consent of litigants or counsel, State v ... Farmer, 188 N.C. 243, 124 S.E. 562. The court has not ... only found it necessary to adopt them, but equally necessary ... to enforce them ... v. Wagoner, 91 N.C. 521 (dismissed for failure of surety ... on appeal bond to justify); State v. Butts, 91 N.C ... 524 (certiorari issued to ascertain whether "court was ... held by a judge authorized by law to hold it, and at the ... place and ... ...
-
Pruitt v. Wood
...undertaking on appeal); State v. Wagoner, 91 N. C. 521 (dismissed for failure of surety on appeal bond to justify); State v. Butts, 91 N. C. 524 (certiorari issued to ascertain whether "court was held by a judge authorized by law to hold it, and at the place and time prescribed by law"). We......
-
State v. Stafford, 90.
...E. 118), or that the "court was held by a judge authorized * * * to hold it, and at the place and time prescribed by law." State v. Butts, 91 N. C. 524. In Spence v. Tapscott, 92 N. C. 576, it was held (as stated in first headnote): "In order for the Supreme Court to acquire jurisdiction, i......