State v. Edens
| Decision Date | 31 October 1881 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. J. T. EDENS. |
INDICTMENT for a nuisance tried at August Term, 1881, of NEW HANOVER Criminal Court, before Meares, J.
The indictment charges the defendant with having committed a nuisance by obstructing a public street of the city of Wilmington. The particular nuisance complained of is that he kept a market cart standing in the street for the space of one and a half hours.
The prosecution originated in the criminal court of New Hanover county, and when called to answer, the defendant first pleaded in abatement that one of the grand jurors who passed upon the indictment had a civil suit pending and at issue in the superior court of said county, and was therefore disqualified.
His Honor overruled the plea and the defendant excepted.
The jury rendered a special verdict, upon which they asked the instruction of the court, in substance as follows: The defendant kept his mule and cart, on the day mentioned in the bill of indictment, in said position continuously for one and a half hours, (the position being found to be at the corner of Market and Second streets, near a crossing, as represented on a diagram accompanying the case) after being notified to remove the same, which he declined to do; that within the two years next preceding the finding of the indictment, the defendant put his cart and mule at different places on Market street, backing up his cart to the sidewalk, for the purpose of selling vegetables and other farm products, at least twenty-five times during the period aforesaid, and remained so situated from one to two hours each time; that other persons were in the habit of occupying similar positions on said streets with their carts and mules, to sell vegetables, &c., under the directions of the municipal authorities, as this defendant did; that it was contrary to the municipal regulations to occupy as aforesaid the position as shown on the diagram during said period; while the defendant was occupying said position, there was no other cart standing in the open space between the four corners of the streets, and during the time there was the usual passing of vehicles and foot-passengers every way, up and down the street; the city ordinance prohibiting persons from placing carts at the corner indicated on the diagram (where the defendant's mule and cart were standing) was passed because of the public inconvenience in causing the collection of a crowd at the point adjacent to the sidewalk, which was usually so great as to require a policeman to keep the way clear, but on the particular occasion mentioned in the indictment, there was no such crowd; and that there were numbers of persons occupying similar positions on the street, with their carts backed up to the sidewalk, selling vegetables, &c.
Thereupon the court being of opinion that the defendant was guilty, gave judgment accordingly, and the defendant appealed.
Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. D. J. Devane, for defendant .
First, as to the question touching the qualification of the grand juror who aided in finding the indictment. The act of 1876-'7, ch. 242, is the one which estab??tablished the criminal court for the county of New Hanover, and after prescribing a manner of drawing the jurors for that court, differing somewhat with the mode ordinarily used in drawing those who are to serve in the superior courts, it provides in the 8th section that the jurors so drawn shall “be subject to the same rules and regulations and possess the same qualifications as are provided by law in regard to jurors in the superior court.”
On looking at the statute (C. C. P., § 229 a,) which is the only one that prescribes the qualifications of jurors for the superior court, we find that they are required to be such as have paid their taxes for the year preceding that in which they may be drawn, and as are of sufficient intelligence and good moral character.
It is true that by section 229 g. of the same Code, it is provided that if any juror drawn from the superior court should at the time have a suit pending therein, the scroll containing his name shall be returned to the box and he shall not be permitted then to serve. But this is no disqualification of the person as a juror for that court; so far from it his name is expressly directed to be returned to the box that he may be drawn on some other occasion after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Birmingham v. Hood-McPherson Realty Co.
...22 Ala. 190; City Council of Montgomery v. Wright, 72 Ala. 411 ; Webb v. Demopolis, 95 Ala. 116, 13 So. 289, 21 L.R.A. 62." See State v. Edens, 85 N.C. 522, 526. are the rules as frequently declared in this and other jurisdictions. The obstructions authorized by the ordinance in question ar......
-
State v. Fulton
...attempts to destroy the reputation of an innocent woman" is indictable, even though such "innocent woman" happens to be his wife. State v. Edens, 85 N. C. 522, is overruled. Nothing else appearing the judgment of the court below quashing the bill should be reversed. In the opinion filed by ......
-
State v. Malpass
...from the Latin verb "obstruere." Long ago usage broadened its meaning so as to include the idea of delay, impeding, or hindering. State v. Edens, 85 N.C. 522. State v. Godwin, 145 N.C. 464, 59 S.E. 132, 122 Am. St. Rep. 467, the obstruction was a fence, and the test applied was whether it r......
-
State v. Fox, 577
...traffic on Elm and Market Streets. This conduct constituted an indictable nuisance--State v. Godwin, 145 N.C. 461, 59 S.E. 132; State v. Edens, 85 N.C. 522--a misdemeanor, punishable by fine, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, G.S. § Defendants were not, however, tried for vi......