#### STATE v. JOYNER.

(November 20, 1900.)

Removal of Causes — Mayor—Justices of the Peace — Criminal Law — Ordinances—Venue.

In a prosecution for violation of a town ordinance before a mayor, the defendant is not entitled to a removal.

INDICTMENT against- William A. Joyner for violation o-f a town ordinance,, beard by Judge Henry R. Bryan and a jury, at July Term, 1900, of Oauakeus Superior C'ourt. Erom verdict of guilty and judgment, tbe defendant appealed.

Zeb. V. Walser, Attorney-General, and L. F. Harisell, for the State.

Montgomery & Crowell, for the defendant.

Clark,' J.

The defendant was tried before the Mayor of Concord upon a warrant for violation of a town ordinance. In apt time he filed an affidavit to remove the cause to' some Justice of the Peace in that township. This being denied, he excepted. He was adjudged guilty, and fined threé dollars. On appeal in the Superior Court, he moved to remand the cause to the Mayor, that it might be so removed. ' This being denied, the defendant excepted. He was tried, found guilty, sentenced to pay a fine of three dollars, and appealed.

Code, sec. 907, provides: “In all proceedings and trials, both criminal and civil, before Justices of the Peace, the Justice before whom the writ, or summons, is returnable, shall, upon affidavit, made by either party to the action, that he- is unable to obtain justice before him, move the same to some other Justice residing in the same township,” etc. There can be little, if any, doubt that, but for the statute, the filing of *542such petition tbat a party “can not get justice” would be a contempt of court. The act, by its terms, is restricted to Justices of tbe Peace, and the courts are not authorized, nor inclined to extend it to Mayors, or other judicial officers not named therein. It is true that by virtue of The Code, (see. 3820), violation of a town ordinance is a misdemeanor, and hence a Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction {State v. Wood, 94 N. C., 855), and that, if a Justice of the Peace had been trying this cause, it could have been removed upon filing an affidavit under Code, see. 907; but it does not follow that it could be removed when the Mayor is trying the case, for he is a different officer, selected by a different constituency. He does not become a Justice of the Peace simply because he is exercising jurisdiction which the Justice of the Peace might concurrently exercise. Code, sec. 1132, authorizes the Justices of this Court, the Judges of the Superior, Inferior, and Criminal Courts, and Mayors, to issue warrants for the arrest of persons charged with any crime, equally with Justices of the Peace; but that does not Make all these other judicial officers, including Mayors, Justices of the Peace, even pro hac vice. A party' who should so construe the statute, and should file an affidavit for removal before any Judge “because he could not get justice,” would doubtless find himself punished for contempt. Code, sec. 3818, makes the Mayor of every city, or town, an “inferior court,” and a Magistrate and conservator of the peace, and confers on him the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace in all criminal matters. This merely adds the powers of a Justice of the Peace in criminal matters ex officio to the office of Mayor. It does not make him a Justice of the Peace. To a certain extent, he is that, but he is more besides. Nor has he, by that section, the civil jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace. The two offices are distinct, though exercising concurrent jurisdiction in some *543matters. Counsel for defendant lay stress on tbe words “shall be a Magistrate and conservator of tbe peace,” but tbe context shows (by not giving tbe civil jurisdiction) that tbe word “magistrate” is not there used as a synonym for Justice of tbe Peace, but in tbe same general sense of a peace officer and conservator of tbe peacej as when we speak of tbe Governor, or President, as tbe Chief Magistrate. Tbe latter part of tbe section, providing that tbe rules of law regulating proceedings before a Justice of tbe Peace shall be applicable-to proceedings before a Mayor, and that be shall be entitled to tbe same fees, refers to tbe ordinary proceedings on tbe trial of causes depending before him, and neither gives tbe Mayor tbe same functions (such as civil jurisdiction) as Justices of tbe Peace, nor subjects tbe Mayor by construction to tbe provisions as to removal of cau'ses under see. 907, which does not name tbe Mayor, but by its terms is restricted to Justices of tbe Peace. In all sections of Tbe Code, in which it is intended to confer upon Mayors, or other officers, tbe same jurisdiction of any matter which is exercised by a Justice of tbe Peace — as in section 1132- — tbe “Mayor of any town, or city,” is named as such, not being comprehended ex vi termini under the term “Justices of tbe Peace.” Of course, tbe same must be true of section 907.

No error.