State v. Moore
| Decision Date | 31 January 1880 |
| Citation | 82 N.C. 659 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. SNOW MOORE. |
INDICTMENT for an Affray, tried at Fall Term, 1879, of IREDELL Superior Court, before Schenck, J.
The defendants, Snow Moore and William Sloop, were tried and convicted on an indictment for an affray in the usual form. It was in proof that the defendant, Moore, struck his co-defendant with a stick loaded in the end with lead, and knocked out his eye. The counsel for defendants moved in arrest of judgment because the indictment did not allege that a deadly weapon was used nor serious damage done; and because the indictment did not charge that the affray occurred more than six months before the finding of the bill. The motion was overruled, judgment, appeal by defendants.
Attorney General, for the State .
The defendants were not represented in this court.
This case presents one of the numerous questions of jurisdiction, which are constantly arising from hasty and inadvertent legislation on the subject of the distribution of the judicial powers of the government among the different courts of the state. Judges and justices are in doubt as to their jurisdiction in many cases. Solicitors are at a loss how to frame their bills. And the consequence is, litigation is increased and expenses incurred by the very legislation which was intended to simplify and cheapen legal proceedings. This very case now before us is an instance of this uncertainty in the construction of the laws.
The constitution in section twelve, article four, declares that the general assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction which rightfully pertains to it, as a co-ordinate department of the government; but the general assembly shall allot and distribute that portion of the power and jurisdiction, which does not pertain to the supreme court, among the other courts prescribed in the constitution or which may be established by law, in such manner as it may deem best. And again in section twenty-seven of the same article, it is declared “that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction of all criminal matters arising within their counties, where the punishment cannot exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for thirty days.”
The superior courts by their original constitution had jurisdiction of all criminal offences, and still have, except where it has been restricted by the constitution or some act of the legislature. Under the constitution of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Battle
...was seriously Injured or sustained serious damages, is too general and indefinite. State v. Earnest, 98 N. C. 740, 4 S. E. 495; State v. Moore, 82 N. C. 659; State v. Russell, 91 N. C. 624; State v. Covington, 94 N. C. 913, 55 Am. Rep. 650; State v. Shelly, 98 N. C. 673, 4 S. E. 530; State ......
-
State v. Battle
...seriously injured or sustained serious damages, is too general and indefinite. State v. Earnest, 98 N.C. 740, 4 S.E. 495; State v. Moore, 82 N.C. 659; State v. Russell, 91 N.C. 624; State v. Covington, 94 N.C. 913, 55 Am. Rep. 650; State v. Shelly, 98 N.C. 673, 4 S.E. 530; State v. Porter, ......
-
State v. Rorie, 579
...94 S.E. 682. Where it is charged that an assault has been made with a deadly weapon, the character of the weapon must be averred. State v. Moore, 82 N.C. 659; State v. Russell, 91 N.C. 624; State v. Cunningham, 94 N.C. 824; State v. Porter, 101 N.C. 713, 7 S.E. 902; State v. Myrick, 202 N.C......
-
State v. Kerby
...shown that the offense was committed 12 months before the indictment was found. State v. Porter, 101 N. C. 713, 7 S. E. Rep. 902; State v. Moore, 82 N. C. 659; State v. Taylor, 83 N. C. 601; State v. Earnest, 98 N. C. 740, 4 S. E. Rep. 495; State v. Cunningham, 94 N. C. 824; State v. Shelly......