State v. Carroll

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
• Writing for the Court: ENGERUD
• Citation: 13 N.D. 383,101 N.W. 317
• Parties: STATE v. CARROLL.
• Decision Date: 07 October 1904

13 N.D. 383
101 N.W. 317

STATE
v.
CARROLL.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Oct. 7, 1904.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The jurisdiction of the district court over the person of the defendant and the subject-matter in bastardy proceedings is complete when the transcript of the proceedings before the justice and the jurisdictional papers filed with the justice are Iodged with the clerk of the district court.

2. In such proceedings, when the defendant furnishes bail, approved by the magistrate under section 7842, Rev. Codes 1899, it is not necessary that the magistrate's transcript of proceedings should show any formal order or judgment holding the defendant for trial.

3. An affidavit for continuance on the ground of the absence of a material witness, which states that the affiant is informed and believes that the absent witness can and will testify to certain facts, but fails to disclose the sources of information or the grounds for such belief, is insufficient.

Appeal from District Court, Ward County; L. J. Palda, Jr., Judge.

Leslie R. Carroll was convicted of crime, and appeals. Affirmed.

[101 N.W. 317]

Le Sueur & Bradford, for appellant. James Johnson, State's Atty.

ENGERUD, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment rendered against him in bastardy proceedings. The appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed and the proceedings dismissed because the district court had no jurisdiction, or, if the objection to the jurisdiction is not well taken, a new trial should be ordered because the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a continuance.

The record discloses that a complaint in statutory form was presented to the justice, showing that the defendant was the father of the complaining witness' bastard child; that a warrant in due form was thereupon issued, by virtue of which warrant the defendant was apprehended and brought before the magistrate; that the defendant then furnished an undertaking for his appearance in district court to answer the complaint, which undertaking was accepted by the justice, and defendant released from custody. All the original papers, properly identified, together with a certified transcript of his proceedings, were transmitted by the justice to the district court. The proceeding was placed on the calendar for trial at the next term, and when the case was reached for trial the defendant appeared by counsel, and moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the trial court had not acquired...