Opinion
No. 29176.
December 8, 1930.
1. CRIMINAL LAW. Jurisdiction of county court is not confined to particular justice district, but is concurrent with jurisdiction of all justices of county ( Hemingway's Code 1927, section 725).
Hemingway's Code 1927, section 725 (Laws 1926, chapter 131, section 1), creating the county court, gives it jurisdiction concurrent with courts of justices of the peace in all matters, civil and criminal, of which justices of the peace have jurisdiction.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.
Jurisdiction of county court in misdemeanor case is coextensive with boundary of county wherein offense was committed, and venue of crime is that county (Hemingway's Code 1927, sections 725, 726, 728).
3. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.
To confer jurisdiction on county court in misdemeanor case, state need only allege and prove crime was committed in county (Hemingway's Code 1927, sections 725, 726, 728; Code 1930, section 1176).
APPEAL from circuit court of Washington county. HON. S.F. DAVIS, Judge.
W.S. Watson, of Greenville, for appellant.
The state, although charging that defendant was guilty of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and that said charge amounted to a misdemeanor, and that if the charge were a misdemeanor, then the trial court, to-wit, the county court, although trying the case as an original charge preferred in their court, was bound by the rules of practice and procedure of the justice of the peace court had the charge been preferred originally in the justice of the peace court. And, in case the defendant had been tried on a misdemeanor in the justice of the peace court, then, the state would have had to prove that the misdemeanor charged against defendant in this case was committed in the supervisor's district over which the trial court had jurisdiction. Therefore, by reason of the fact that the prosecution was originally lodged in the county court, as we construe the law, does not change the rule to the effect that the court, in trying cases cognizable before the justice of peace court, can exceed the jurisdiction and authority of the justice of the peace court when the justice of the peace court has not been abolished by constitutional amendment, the same being a constitutional office, and thereby give to said county court a greater, or wider, jurisdiction over the defendant than the justice of the peace of the third supervisor's district of Washington county would have had if the case had been tried before a justice of the peace of said district, convicted, sentenced, and an appeal been taken to said county court.
Section 726, Hemingway's Code of 1927; Section 728, Hemingway's Code of 1927; Section 2403, Hemingway's Code of 1927.
Edwin R. Holmes, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
This court in the case of Keyes v. State, 155 Miss. 574, held that where the affidavit for a search warrant was filed with a justice of the peace but the affidavit charging crime was filed before the clerk of the county court, the county court had jurisdiction to try defendant for possessing liquor. In this case the affidavit charging appellant with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor was filed in the county court. The county court therefore, had jurisdiction to try the cause.
By section 693, Mississippi Code 1930, the county court was given jurisdiction concurrent with the court of justice of the peace in all matters civil and criminal of which justices of the peace have jurisdiction.
Section 1176 of the Miss. Code 1930.
On an affidavit made and filed against appellant in the county court of Washington county, charging him with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, whereupon he appealed to the circuit court and the case was affirmed. From this judgment and sentence, appellant prosecutes this appeal.
The only assignment of error we deem it necessary to notice in this opinion is the contention by appellant that the venue in the county court was not alleged in the affidavit or proved, the record showing only that the crime was alleged to have been committed in Washington county, Mississippi, and proof to that effect, and neither the affidavit nor the proof showing that it was committed in justice of peace district No. 3.
The appellant's contention is that it is necessary to allege and prove on a misdemeanor charge that the crime was committed in a particular district of which a justice of peace has jurisdiction, and that proof that it occurred in the county was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the county court. Appellant undertakes to support this contention by section 726, Hemingway's Code 1927, Laws 1926, chapter 131, section 2, which section only deals with pleading, practice, and procedure in a county court, and in no wise deals with the subject of venue or jurisdiction.
The applicable part of section 725, Hemingway's Code 1927, Laws 1926, chapter 131, section 1, which has to do with creating the county court and fixing its jurisdiction in criminal cases, is as follows: "It shall have jurisdiction concurrent with the courts of justices of the peace in all matters, civil and criminal, of which justices of the peace have jurisdiction," etc. The jurisdiction conferred by this section is not confined to that of a particular justice of the peace, but is concurrent with the jurisdiction of all the justices of the peace of the county, so that there is nothing in this section to alter the general concurrent jurisdiction conferred by section 725, supra.
Appellant also cites section 728, Hemingway's Code 1927, Laws 1926, chapter 131, section 4 which reads as follows:
"Venue of actions — Proceedings. — 4. The venue of actions, suits, and proceedings in the county court shall be the same as that now generally provided, or which may hereafter be provided with respect to the particular action, suit or proceedings. Provided, however, that all suits and matters filed in the county court which, if there were no county court, would be triable in the justice courts of the various supervisors' districts, shall be tried at the courthouse of the county, or courthouse of the proper judicial district in counties having two circuit court and two chancery court districts therein."
The language of each of the statutes in this behalf is plain. The venue in criminal proceedings is not changed by this section, and the jurisdiction of the county court being concurrent with that of all the justices of the peace, the county court has jurisdiction concurrent with the justices of the peace of all misdemeanors, and it is unnecessary to allege and prove that the crime occurred in a particular district of a certain justice of the peace. Any other view of the several statutes would only tend to create confusion. The jurisdiction of a county court in a misdemeanor case is coextensive with the boundary of the county wherein the offense was committed, and the venue of the crime is the county in which it is committed. Therefore, it is only necessary to allege and prove that the misdemeanor was committed in the county wherein the prosecution was initiated. Section 1210, Hemingway's Code 1927, section 1176, Code 1930, the general section as to venue, provides that the local jurisdiction of all offenses, unless otherwise provided by law, shall be in the county where the offense was committed.
We think the case was properly submitted to the jury, and we find no reversible error therein.
Affirmed.