Opinion
March 10, 1950.
CAREY, J., sitting.
W. Howard Thompson for defendant.
Daniel J. Layton, Jr., Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Certiorari to a Justice of the Peace for Sussex County.
In the Court below, a complaint was filed charging the defendant with leaving the scene of an accident in violation of 5645 (c), Sec. 107 (c), Revised Code 1935. The record of the Justice indicates that a warrant was issued, but the date of its issuance is not set forth nor does the record disclose any return of the warrant. The record does contain these words: "On October 2, 1949, at 10 o'clock in the A.M. . . . . . Said Plaintiff and defendant state they are ready for a trial, whereupon, 1, Thomas W. Records, as aforesaid, do proceed to hear the allegations and upon the defendant pleading guilty as charged, do impose a fine of $100.00 (one hundred dollars) and costs of the suit $3.50 (three dollars and fifty cents)."
Eight exceptions were filed but, at the argument, the defendant below relied only upon four of them. Three of these are based upon the failure of the record to show the date upon which the warrant was issued, the date upon which it was returned and the manner of its service. The fourth exception is based upon the failure of the record to show that the Justice heard the allegations and proofs of the plaintiff.
Superior Court for Sussex County, No. 318, Civil Action, 1949.
To be upheld on certiorari, the record of a Justice of the Peace must show jurisdiction in him. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action cannot be conferred upon a Court by consent of an accused, but this is not true of jurisdiction over his person. Ney v. State, 5 Terry 1, 54 A.2d 542. This principle has apparently been followed by every Court which has considered it. 14 Am. Jur. 917. Failure to timely object to lack of jurisdiction over the person constitutes a waiver. It has been held that a plea of not guilty is a waiver. Ford v. U.S. 273 U.S. 593, 47 S. Ct. 531, 71 L. Ed. 793. Participation in a trial on the merits, even to a very limited extent, was held to be waived in State v. Rosenblum, 102 N.J.L. 125 , 130 A. 614, even though prior objection to the jurisdiction had been made.
In as much as the issuance, service, and return of a warrant pertain only to jurisdiction over the person, there has clearly been a waiver in this case. The record does not disclose that the accused raised any question in the Court below concerning jurisdiction. On the contrary, it does indicate that he was present and stated that he was ready for trial, and that he pleaded guilty as charged. Under the circumstances, even if no warrant was ever issued or served, he cannot now raise the issue in this Court. The first three exceptions cannot be allowed.
The fourth exception has already been considered and ruled upon by this court in Morris v. State, 4 Terry 404, 47 A.2d 869 When a defendant voluntarily enters a plea of guilty, the Justice is not required to hear the testimony.
The judgment will be affirmed.