State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 11 December 1935
• Docket Number: 363.
• Citation: 182 S.E. 711,209 N.C. 57
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

182 S.E. 711

209 N.C. 57

STATE v. WILLIAMS.

No. 363.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 11, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, Cabarrus County; Hill, Special Judge.

Woodrow Williams was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in the recorder's court and in the superior court, where the matter was tried de novo on appeal from recorder's court and he appeals.

Reversed.

Every presumption will be made in favor of the constitutionality of a statute.

If language of statute is fairly susceptible of two constructions, under one of which it is valid and under the other invalid, the construction sustaining validity will be adopted.

Criminal prosecution tried upon a warrant issued by the recorder of No. 4 township, Cabarrus county, charging the defendant with an assault upon Barney Melton with a deadly weapon, to wit, a pocketknife, inflicting serious injury.

From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon in the recorder's court, the defendant appealed to the superior court, where the matter was tried de novo upon the original warrant, again resulting in an adverse verdict and judgment thereon.

In the superior court, the defendant moved to quash the warrant issued by the recorder of No. 4 township, on the ground that the act creating said recorder's court was void as violative of article 2, section 29, of the Constitution. Overruled; exception.

From the judgment entered in the superior court, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

R. R Hawfield, of Kannapolis, for appellant.

A. A F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and John W. Aiken, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

STACY Chief Justice.

That chapter 286, Public Local Laws 1925, entitled, "An Act to Establish Township Recorders' Courts with Criminal Jurisdiction in Cabarrus County," runs counter to article 2, section 29, of the Constitution, prohibiting the establishment of courts inferior to the superior court, by any local, private, or special act or resolution, is the conclusion of the whole matter. Durham Provision Co. v. Daves, 190 N.C. 7, 128 S.E. 593; In re Harris, 183 N.C. 633, 112 S.E. 425.

This result has been reached after observing the following rules:

(1) In considering the constitutionality of a statute, every presumption is to be indulged in favor of its validity. State v. Revis, 193 N.C. 192, 136 S.E. 346, 50 A.L.R. 98; Sutton v. Phillips, 116 N.C. 502, 21 S.E. 968; State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144.

(2) If the act of assembly be fairly susceptible of two interpretations, one constitutional and the other not, in keeping with the rule in favorem vitae, the former will be adopted and the latter rejected. State v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81; State v. Yarboro, 194 N.C. 498, 140 S.E. 216; State v. Revis, supra.

(3) The courts will not declare an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional, even when clearly so, except in a case properly calling for the determination of its validity. Newman v. Watkins (Com'rs of Vance County), 208 N.C. 675, 182 S.E. 453; Wood v. Braswell, 192 N.C. 588, 135 S.E. 529; State v. Corpening, 191 N.C. 751, 133 S.E. 14; Person v. Doughton, 186 N.C. 723, 120 S.E. 481.

It follows, therefore, that the warrant should have been quashed.

It is provided by the section of the Constitution, above mentioned that the "General Assembly shall not pass any local, private, or special act or resolution...