{ "id": 11254008, "name": "STATE v. W. T. BOSSEE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bossee", "decision_date": "1907-12-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "579", "last_page": "581", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "145 N.C. 579" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "131 N. C., 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N. C., 772", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651716 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0772-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 N. C., 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "107 Mass., 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2104148 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/107/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Conn., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 6753835 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/conn/14/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N. C., 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 266, "char_count": 3638, "ocr_confidence": 0.469, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0911471164807675e-07, "percentile": 0.5656468774820462 }, "sha256": "f49ff8e7ed96373a45cd2baa1470fd36675fde313ac11e01a6eb798e24d30b20", "simhash": "1:f919df3d6281502e", "word_count": 603 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:30.483289+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. W. T. BOSSEE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Olakk, O. J.\nThe charge against the defendant is set out in proper form, under Revisal, sec. 3299, for cruelty to animals, in poisoning a chicken, the property of the prosecutor. That section enumerates as subjects protected from cruelty \u201cany useful beast, fowl or animal.\u201d It also provides that the words-\u201ctorture,\u201d \u201ctorment,\u201d or \u201ccruelty,\u201d shall \u201cinclude every act, omission or neglect whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering or death is caused or permitted.\u201d\nIt is clear, therefore, that poisoning chickens comes within the purview of the statute, as is held in State v. Neal, 120 N. C., at pp. 618-620, citing State v. Butts, 92 N. C., 184; Johnson v. Patterson, 14 Conn., 1, where a neighbor\u2019s chickens were killed by strewing poisoned meal on one\u2019s own premises; Clark v. Keliher, 107 Mass., 406, where the defendant killed a neighbor\u2019s chickens -while trespassing, and many other cases.\nBut we are precluded from going beyond the form of the indictment and passing upon the question whether the defendant is guilty upon the facts found in the special verdict in this case, because Mr. Clement, the Assistant Attorney-General, has frankly and most properly called our attention to the fact that this action originated in the Superior Court, which, under the statute as it now reads, has no original jurisdiction of this offense.\nLaws 1891, ch. 65, amending Code, secs. 2482, ^490, fixed the punishment at \u201cnot more than $50 fine \u00f3r thirty days\u2019 imprisonment, or bothAs this might exceed the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, as prescribed by the Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 27, the jurisdiction was vested in the Superior Court. But in the Revisal, sec. 3299, the words \u201cor both\u201d are stricken out, so that now the punishment' cannot exceed \u201c$50 fine or thirty days\u2019 imprisonment.\u201d Original jurisdiction of the offense is, therefore, in the court of a justice of the peace.\nWhether this omission, of the words \u201cor both\u201d in the Be-visal, and the consequent transfer of jurisdiction, was inadvertently or intentionally made, the law is so worded. The punishment prescribed determines the jurisdiction. State v. Lewis, 142 N. C., 630; State v. Fesperman, 108 N. C., 772.\nThere is no exception on this ground in the record, but a defect of jurisdiction is one of the matters which may be taken advantage of for the first time in this Court, though not raised below. Kule 27 of this Court. Indeed, the Court should take notice thereof ex mero motu. Fowler v. Fowler, 131 N. C., 171, and cases there cited.\nAction Dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Olakk, O. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Assistant A ttomey-Qenerdt Clement for the State.", "No counsel for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. W. T. BOSSEE.\n(Filed 11 December, 1907).\n1. Indictment \u2014 Cruelty to Animals \u2014 -Poison\u2014Chickens.\nA charge in an indictment, under B-evisal, sec. 3299, of poisoning a chicken, the property of the prosecutor, comes within the purview of the statute as cruelty to animals.\n2. Same \u2014 Cruelty to Animals \u2014 Jurisdiction.\nThe punishment fixed by Bevisal, sec. 3299, cannot exceed \u201c$50 fine or thirty days\u2019 imprisonment,\u201d and the Superior Court has no original jurisdiction of the offense of cruelty to animals.\n3. Jurisdiction, Defect of \u2014 -Notice\u2014Supreme Court.\nA defect of jurisdiction may be taken advantage of for the first time in the Supreme Court, though not raised below. This Court should take notice thereof eco mero mo tu.\nCRIMINAL action for cruelty to animals, . tried before Gui\u00f3n, J., at August Term, 1907, of the Superior Court- of TRANSYLVANIA County.\nUpon a special verdict the Court adjudged the defendant not guilty, and the State appealed.\nThe facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court.\nAssistant A ttomey-Qenerdt Clement for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0579-01", "first_page_order": 619, "last_page_order": 621 }