State v. Craig

• Decision Date: 31 January 1880
• Citation: 82 N.C. 668
• Parties: STATE v. CHARLES W. CRAIG.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

82 N.C. 668

STATE

v.CHARLES W. CRAIG.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1880.

CRIMINAL ACTION for failure to work on Public Road, commenced before a justice of the peace and heard on appeal at October Term, 1879, of NEW HANOVER Criminal Court, before Meares, J.

The opinion in this case as reported in 81 N. C., 588, was certified to the court below with directions for further proceedings, when on motion of defendant's counsel the judgment was arrested upon the ground of a want of jurisdiction in the justice's court where the action begun, and Moore, solicitor for the state, appealed.

Attorney General, for the State .

Mr. A. T. London, for the defendant .

SMITH, C. J.

This case was before the court at the last term, and it was held that upon the facts set out in the special verdict, the defendant was not exempt from liability to work upon the public roads. Upon the calling of the cause in New Hanover criminal court for further proceedings, on motion of the defendant's counsel, judgment was arrested and the solicitor appealed. The argument in support of the ruling below is the want of jurisdiction in the justice, with whom the proceedings originated, to hear and determine the subject matter of the charge, and this is the only point presented in the appeal. It thus becomes necessary to examine and ascertain the result of the legislation in respect to the offence.

By the act of February 16th, 1871, it is declared “that if any person liable under existing laws, to work upon the public roads shall wilfully refuse to work upon said roads after being legally summoned for that purpose, &c., the person, so offending, shall for every such offence be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction before a justice of the peace shall be fined not less than two nor more than five dollars.” Bat. Rev., ch. 32, § 112.

This act was amended by the act of February 16th, 1874, which provides that “the punishment for this offence shall not exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for one month.” Act of 1873-'74, ch. 176, § 7.

In consequence of the recent amendment to the constitution whereby the jurisdiction of justices of the peace is restricted to criminal cases where “the punishment cannot exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for thirty days” instead of one month, as before, it became necessary, to retain the jurisdiction of these officers, that a different penalty should be prescribed. This is done in the act of February 28th, 1879, act 1879, ch. 92, the first section of which confers upon justices of the peace “exclusive original jurisdiction to hear, try and determine the offences enumerated in sections 43, 85, 112,” &c., of chapter 32 of Bat. Rev., as amended by chapter 176, of the laws of 1873-'74; “and the punishment for every such offence shall not exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for thirty days.”

There would be no difficulty about the question of juristion under this legislation, were it not for the act of March 14th, 1879, entitled “An act to provide for keeping in repair the public roads of the state.” Acts of 1879, ch. 82. Section 6 of this act provides that “any person liable to work on the road who shall fail to attend and work, as hereinbefore provided, when summoned so to do, unless he shall have paid the one dollar as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be fined not less than two dollars nor more than five dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding five...