{ "id": 11271690, "name": "STATE v. DORCAS WARD et al.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ward", "decision_date": "1922-09-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "618", "last_page": "619", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "184 N.C. 618" } ], "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": "104 N. C., 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651481 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 N. C., 762", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658411, 8658436 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0762-01", "/nc/182/0762-02" ] }, { "cite": "139 N. C., 555", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653148 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/139/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658696 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N. C., 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651429 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/111/0384-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 260, "char_count": 3586, "ocr_confidence": 0.452, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.392552054677732e-08, "percentile": 0.2757877003639981 }, "sha256": "9201c8d3e4c5f8e9e7d90ca81ea6985401b1208a52ca9296b7dc720d7f494a09", "simhash": "1:59a2e3ee160d21ff", "word_count": 619 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:19.408476+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. DORCAS WARD et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Pee. Cubiam.\nThe defendants were convicted at January Term, 1922, of Pitt. The appeal was not docketed here until 9 September, 1922. The record proper was not docketed last term, and no motion of cer-tiorari was asked for, and the appeal must be dismissed.\nThis has been the uniform rule of this Court always, and we have repeatedly called the attention of counsel for appellants to the fact that the procedure in this Court, by the Constitution, is left entirely to this Court, and no act of the Legislature has sought to or could modify the procedure here. Herndon v. Ins. Go., 111 N. C., 384. At last term, in S. v. Johnson, 183 N. C., 730, this Court again fully discussed the settled rule, and said: \u201cThis Court has never changed its rule, of which it is sole judge, that in every case when the record is not docketed in the time required at the next term, the appellant must docket the record proper and ask for certiorari. Whenever this is not done, the case not docketed until the next succeeding term will be dismissed. S. v. Telfair, 139 N. C., 555 (2 Anno. Ed.), and cases there cited; Buggy Co. v. Lamb, 182 N. C., 762; Rogers v. Asheville, ibid., 596.\u201d Tbe Court in tbat ease fully discussed tbe matter now before us, and we reiterate wbat was there said.\nTbe Constitution provides, in Art. I, sec. 8, \u201cTbe legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of tbe Government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other.\u201d Art. IY, sec. 2, of tbe Constitution further provides tbat tbe \u201cGeneral Assembly may regulate by law, if necessary, tbe methods of proceeding in tbe exercise of their powers of all tbe courts beloiu the Supreme Court, so far as tbe same may be done without conflict with other provisions of this Constitution.\u201d\nTbe above is discussed fully in Horton v. Green, 104 N. C., 400, and tbe Court there points out tbat while tbe Legislature may, as above stated in tbe Constitution, regulate tbe procedure in tbe courts below, it cannot interfere with tbe regulations of this Court as to tbe procedure here, which includes, of course, tbe time within which an appeal must be docketed.\nThis Court has often stressed tbe fact tbat there should not be any unnecessary delay in bringing up appeals, and while tbe Legislature may regulate procedure in tbe lower courts, provided it does not interfere in bringing up appeals to this Court, it is forbidden by tbe Constitution, and has never attempted, to interfere with tbe regulation of procedure in this Court.\nIt is to be trusted tbat this matter will receive tbe attention of tbe bar, and tbat we will not be called upon so often to enforce tbe procedure tbat we have deemed necessary to prescribe, and tbat counsel will thus save tbe time of tbe Court and consider tbe interest of their clients.\nAppeal dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Pee. Cubiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the Slate.", "Julius Brown and Albion Dunn for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. DORCAS WARD et al.\n(Filed 27 September, 1922.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Rules of Court \u2014 Procedure\u2014Statutes\u2014Constitutional Daw.\nTbe rules prescribed by tbe Supreme Court to regulate its own procedure, including tbe rule as to dismissing an appeal thereto if not docketed, or a reoordari prayed for in apt time, will be strictly enforced. Being under tbe exclusive authority therein given to tbe Supreme Court by tbe Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8, as distinguished from procedure applying to courts inferior thereto, Art. IY, sec. 2, a statute in conflict therewith will not be observed.\nAppeal by defendants from Qranmer, J., at January Term, 1922, of Pitt.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the Slate.\nJulius Brown and Albion Dunn for defendant." }, "file_name": "0618-01", "first_page_order": 674, "last_page_order": 675 }