Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Nev. 239

State v. Roberts

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1873

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1873-01-15

The defendant, together with one Charles Beaver, was indicted for robbing Walter M. Thomas of $93 in coin on January 31, 1871. The cause was to have regularly come on for trial at the June term, 1871, of the district court at Reno. It was called and the trial proceeded on July 10.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The intention of the legislature in prescribing the time for the commencement and the place for holding the terms of the district court was to attain certainty. The principle of a fixed notice by the legislature rests upon public convenience; otherwise suitors, grand and trial jurors, and others interested in the proceedings of the court would be kept in attendance upon an uncertainty of time and place. ‘Certain fixed times and places’ were said by Spelman to be essential to the existence of a court; and these essentials have been recognized by lexicographers, text-writers, and judges ever since his time. It is indispensable to the validity of a judgment that it be rendered at the time and place prescribed by law. The proceedings in this case were, therefore, coram non judice and void.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Stockslager v. United States

Relies on People v. Sanchez

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 1950

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

40187318801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*241By the Court,

Belknap, J.:

¶2The legislature of the State of Nevada at its fourth session appointed the first Monday in 'January, June and October as the days for the commencement of the terms of the district court in the County of Washoe. The district judge did not appear at Reno, the county seat, for the purpose of holding the June term of court until the twenty-second day of June; nor was there any pretense to adjourn court at any time prior to that date in compliance with the provisions of section 52 of the act concerning courts of justice and judicial officers, as amended March 5, 1869. At the term thus Rolden the defendant was tried; and the only question necessary to a determination of this appeal is whether he was tried' at a legal term of court.

¶3Amended section 52, referred to, reads as follows: “If no judge attend on the day appointed to hold the court before noon, the sheriff or clerk shall adjourn the court until the next day at ten o’clock, and if no judge attend on that day before noon the sheriff or clerk shall adjourn the court until the following day, and so on from day to day for one week; if no judge attend for one week the sheriff or clerk shall adjourn the court for the term; provided, before the expiration of one week the judge shall order by letter or telegram to adjourn the court to any day within the term,sthe sheriff or clerk shall adjourn the court to the day so ordered.”

¶4The purpose of this statute is to prevent a loss of the term in case of the failure of the judge to attend on the first day of the term. “Leave this section out of the statute and the loss of a term is the consequence of a failure of a judge to appear on the day appointed for holding the court. ” People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17. Hence the term was lost unless saved by the proceedings at Washoe City.

¶5Section 18 of the act before referred to provides that “the terms of the district court shall be held.at the county seat of the several counties. ” In exceptional cases the judge is authorized to hold court at a place other than the *242county seat; but it is not pretended that any of tbe statutory exceptions existed in tbis case. Tbe intention of tbe legislature in prescribing tbe time for tbe commencement and tbe place for bolding tbe terms of tbe district court was to attain certainty. Tbe principle of a fixed notice by tbe legislature rests upon public convenience; otherwise suitors, grand and trial jurors and others interested in tbe proceedings of tbe court would be kept in attendance upon an uncertainty of time and place. Certain fixed times and places ” were said by Spelman to be essential to tbe existence of a court; and these essentials have been recognized by lexicographers, text-writers and judges ever since bis time. It is indispensable to tbe validity of a judgment that it be rendered at tbe time and place prescribed by law: tbe proceedings in tbis case were therefore coram non judice and void.

¶6Tbe judgment of tbe district court is reversed, and tbe cause remanded for a new trial.

/8/nev/239 · .json · Public domain