State v. Hartley
| Decision Date | 02 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 79.) |
| Citation | 136 S.E. 868 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. HARTLEY. |
Petition for Certiorari in Lieu of Appeal from Superior Court, Johnston County; Cranmer, Judge.
John K. Hartley was convicted of a criminal libel, and to review a judgment on return to a writ of habeas corpus refusing to discharge him from custody, he petitions for certiorari in lieu of appeal. Application for writ of certiorari denied.
D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Abell & Shepard, Wellons & Wellons, and F. H. Brooks, all of Smithfield, for defendant.
The material allegations upon which the petitioner bases his application for a writ of certiorari are as follows:
(1) That he was tried in the recorder's court of Johnston county, before James Ray-nor, Esq., substitute recorder, on October 20, 1926, convicted of criminal libel, and sentenced to 30 days in jail, etc.
(2) That the said James Raynor was elected substitute recorder on October 19, 1926, for the remainder of the term of the duly elected recorder, Ezra Parker, under and by virtue of authority vested in the board of county commissioners of Johnston county by chapter 269, Public Local Laws 1911, chapter 554, Public Local Laws 1921, said amendment, in so far as material, being as follows:
" 'The said board of county commissioners may elect a substitute recorder, who shall act as recorder during the absence from the county of the recorder mentioned herein or at any time when he is unable to perform said duties, and at such times shall exercise all the powers of recorder and be subject to the same rules and requirements imposed upon the recorder.'"
(3) That on the 20th day of October, 1926, the duly elected recorder of Johnston county, Ezra Parker, was present in the county and able to perform his duties, but declined to try the petitioner because of his relationship by blood (brother) to the prosecuting witness against whom the libel is alleged to have been published.
(4) That the warrant upon which the petitioner was tried is defective in that it fails to charge a criminal offense.
Upon these, the allegations chiefly pertinent, the petitioner contends that the judgment against him is void, in that the prosecution was coram non judice, and the warrant, upon which he was tried, failed to charge any offense against the criminal law of the state.
The first ground upon which the petitioner assails the validity of the judgment, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ponder v. Davis
...is, that the presiding judge took a partisan interest in the election contest, out of which the present controversy arose. State v. Hartley, 193 N.C. 304, 136 S.E. 868; State v. Byington, Utah, 1948, 200 P.2D 723, 5 A.L.R.2d 1393. 'If self the wavering balance shake, It's rarely right adjus......
-
In Re Advisory Opinion.
...letter of the law seemed broad enough to include the power. See, also, Ex parte Steele, 220 N.C. 685, 18 S.E.2d 132, and State v. Hartley, 193 N.C. 304, 136 S.E. 868. Substantially the same question here submitted has been the subject of debate in a number of states. It is generally held th......
- State v. Blackwell