State v. Warren
| Decision Date | 19 December 1893 |
| Citation | 113 N. C. 683,18 S.E. 498 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. WARREN. |
Constitutional Law—Freedom of Speech— Local Police Laws. 1. Acts 1891, c. 42, making it unlawful, among other things, to use profane language to the disturbance of the peace on the lands of the Henrietta Cotton Mills, in Rutherford county, is not an undue interference with free speech, as applied to language which fails of being a nuisance under the state law, because not used in the presence or hearing of persons, to their annoyance.
2. Acts 1891, c. 42, to protect the operatives of the Henrietta Cotton Mills, in Rutherford county, making certain industries and behavior unlawful on lands of said mills, is a police law, and not invalid as a local criminal law.
Appeal from superior court, Rutherford county; Armfield, Judge.
J. T. Warren, convicted under Laws 1891, c. 42, of using profane language on land of the Henrietta Cotton Mills, appeals. Affirmed.
Said act makes it unlawful to manufacture or sell liquor, use profane language, fire off firearms, congregate on the bridge, etc., on lands of the Henrietta Cotton Mills, in Rutherford county.
The Attorney General and John Devereux, for the State.
The defendant was arrested upon a warrant issued under chapter 42, Acts 1891, for "unlawful and willful use of profane and indecent language, that did disturb the peace, on the lands of the Henrietta Mills." On the trial before the justice of the peace the defendant pleaded guilty. He was fined $50, and appealed. The sworn complaint was made on October 31, 1892, and the warrant issued on the same day. The trial was had, and a plea of guilty entered, on November 3, 1892. We only note that the officer returned the warrant, "Served on October 12, 1892, " to say that this was a palpable inadvertence, of no purport, since the defendant appeared in the action. If pleaded at the trial, the justice should have granted the officer leave to amend the return. Code, § 908. Not being pleaded, the plea upon the merits cured the error as to the defendant. The defendant having pleaded guilty, his appeal could not call in question the facts charged, nor the regularity and correctness in form of the warrant. Code, § 1183. He is concluded as to these, though in fact the proceedings are regular in form. The words used by the defendant need not have been set out State v. Cainan, 94 N. C. 880. The appeal could only bring up for review the question whether the facts charged, and of which the defendant admitted himself to have been guilty, constituted an offense punishable under our laws and constitution. Whart. Crim. P1. & Pr. (9th Ed.) § 413. Though the record proper states that in the superior court the defendant was tried by jury and found guilty, it seems that in fact the object of the appeal was merely to test the validity of the statute, since the judgment was arrested by the court upon the ground that the act of the legislature was unconstitutional. There are two grounds upon which the unconstitutionality of the statute may be urged.
First, that it is an interference with the freedom of speech. The legislature could have empowered a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dixon
...to less than the whole state. If it does, the many cases cited in the majority opinion are to the contrary. In State v. Warren, 113 N.C. 683, 18 S.E. 498, 499, the act construed made the use of profane language in certain locality unlawful. The court upheld conviction and used this language......
-
State v. Stokes, 248
...a plea of guilty standing alone does not waive a jurisdictional defect. State v. Covington, 258 N.C. 501, 128 S.E.2d 827; State v. Warren, 113 N.C. 683, 18 S.E. 498; Weir v. United States, 92 F.2d 634 (7th Cir. 1937), 114 A.L.R. 481; People v. Green, 368 Ill. 242, 13 N.E.2d 278, 115 A.L.R. ......
-
State v. Crandall
...up for review only matters of law, and the defendant is not entitled to a trial de novo. State v. Warren, 113 N.C. 683, 18 S.E. 498. In the Warren case, the Court, distinguishing it from the State v. Koonce, 108 N.C. 752, 12 S.E. 1032, held that the defendant had restricted himself by his p......
-
State v. Abbott
...a criminal offence under the laws of North Carolina, upon which a valid judgment could be rendered? We think so. In State v. Warren, 113 N.C. 683, 18 S.E. 498, it held: "Where a defendant pleads guilty, his appeal from a judgment thereon cannot call into question the facts charged, nor the ......