From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Heidelburg

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1874
70 N.C. 496 (N.C. 1874)

Opinion

(January Term, 1874.)

The Act of 1868-'69, chap. 178, by which Justices of the Peace were given jurisdiction finally to try certain petty assaults under certain circumstances, was repealed by the act of 1870-'71, chap. 43, which says that in all cases of assault the punishment may be by fine or imprisonment, or both, at the discretion of the Court.

The Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 33, gives Justices jurisdiction of criminal matters arising in their counties when the punishment cannot exceed a fine of fifty dollars, or imprisonment for one month. When the Legislature removed this limitation, and left it discretionary with the Court to exceed that limit it took away the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace over the offence.

INDICTMENT for an affray, tried at Fall Term, 1873, of the Superior Court of GREENE County, before Clarke, J.

Attorney General Hargrove for the State.

No counsel in this Court for defendants.


The parties had been tried for the same offense before a Justice of the Peace, and fined. To the indictment found in the Superior (497) Court, they pleaded "former conviction." His Honor sustained the plea, and gave judgment, dismissing the charge; from which judgment Solicitor Sherrard appealed.


The defence of a former conviction cannot be sustained. The act of 1868-'69, chap. 178, sub. chap. 4, by which Justices of the Peace were given jurisdiction finally to try certain petty assaults under circumstances was indirectly but effectually repealed by the act of 1870-'71, chap. 43, sec. 2, which says, that in all cases of assault the punishment may be by fine, or imprisonment, or both, at the discretion of the Court.

The Constitution, Art. IV., sec. 33, gives Justices jurisdiction of criminal matters arising in their counties when the punishment cannot exceed a fine of fifty dollars, or imprisonment for one month. The moment, therefore, that the Legislature removed the limitation on the punishment prescribed by the act of 1868-'69, and left it discretionary with the Court to exceed that limit, it took away the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace over the offence.

Our opinion on this point makes it unnecessary to consider the other objections made to the former conviction before a Justice. They are, however, equally clear.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed and venire de novo.

S. v. Jones, 82 N.C. 670; S. v. Watts, 85 N.C. 518; S. v. Fespermen, 108 N.C. 772; S. v. McAden, 162 N.C. 577.


Summaries of

State v. Heidelburg

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1874
70 N.C. 496 (N.C. 1874)
Case details for

State v. Heidelburg

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. R. C. HEIDELBURG, H. D. POTTER AND ANOTHER

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 1, 1874

Citations

70 N.C. 496 (N.C. 1874)

Citing Cases

State v. Watts

The act of 1879, ch. 92, does not apply to proceedings pending at the date of its ratification; hence the…

State v. Craig

Justices of the peace have exclusive original jurisdiction of the offence of failing to work the public…