Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

107 N.C. 808

12 S.E 455

State v. . Penley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1890

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1890-09-05

This was an Indictment for Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon, tried before Moore, J., at July Term, 1890, of the Criminal Court of BuNCOMbe Couniy. The case on appeal is as follows: The trial was concluded and the case given to the jury at about 6 o’clock on Saturday evening of the first week of said Court.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1958

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-09-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Davis, J.

¶1 after stating the facts: Chapter 493 of the Acts of 1889, establishing “The Criminal Court of Buncombe County,” provides in section 15 that there shall be four terms of said Criminal Court in each year, specifying the time and place of holding said Court, which shall continue its sessions for the term of one week if the business thereof shall require: “Provided, if there be remaining undis-posed of at the end of the week cases where defendants are charged with crimes punishable with imprisonment in the penitentiary, or capitally, or, if defendants be in jail waiting trial, its sessions may be continued until such cases are disposed of either by trial or continuance of the Court.”

¶2 1. It was the duty of the Judge to continue the Court beyond the first week, if, for any of the causes stated in the statute, it was required. The term did not necessarily end with the first week. The Judge was holding Court on Monday of the second week, and the presumption is that he was doing so rightfully, as he might do, as authorized by the statute.

¶3 If it be said that the defendant was not charged with a crime .punishable with imprisonment in the penitentiary, or capitally, or that he was not in jail awaiting trial, and only such cases could be disposed of during the second week, we *810 think the statute is suscepitble fairly of a broader construction, and if it becomes necessary to hold the Court two weeks, any causes within its jurisdiction may be disposed of during the second, as well as the first week. The Judge was both a de jure and a de facto officer, holding Court during the second week for the transaction of such business as came within his jurisdiction and the presumption is in favor of the regularity and validity of his acts in a Court actually being held during the second week. State v. Speaks, 95 N. C., 689.

¶4 2. The question presented by the second assignment of error has been settled by this Court adversely to the appellants. State v. Ricketts, 74 N. C., 187; State v. McGimsey, 80 N. C., 377; White v. Morris, at this term.

¶5 Affirmed.

/107/nc/808 · .json · Public domain