{
  "id": 11278491,
  "name": "THE STATE v. ALLGOOD LOCUST and HAWKINS PEARSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Locust",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "574",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 574"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3233,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.423,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.585569281044706e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9615612724911762
    },
    "sha256": "85b7a057b2e5b248f7b6afe14bb6bf0333ad06a9c2f5b0d655e38560b11629f3",
    "simhash": "1:45d23e38ad3954fe",
    "word_count": 565
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. ALLGOOD LOCUST and HAWKINS PEARSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Dick, J.\nA proceeding upon a \u201c peace warrant \u201d is now declared to be a criminal action, Code Civil Procedure, sec. 5 subdivis. 2, and it is regulated by a Statute entitled, \u201cProceedings in criminal cases,\u201d ratified the 10th day of April, 1869. Previous to the ratification of the C. C. P., and the Statute aforesaid, such proceedings were regulated by the common law, and the learning upon the subject will be found in Bacon\u2019s Abridgement, Tit. \u201cSurety of the Peace,\u201d 1st Durn. and East. 696, 13 East. 171; Wilson\u2019s case, 1st Jon., 550.\nSuch proceedings must be summary and conclusive to render them effectual for the protection of the complainant and to secure the public peace, and generally there is no appeal from the action of the Justice or Judge in the matter.\nThis case was commenced after the ratification of the C. C. P., and is therefore a criminal action. At the time this case was heard in the Court below, there was no Statute regulating costs in such matters, but provision has since been made in the Statute above referred to, ch. 2, sec. 14. The Justice who acted upon the complaint in this action did not enter up judgment for the costs of the proceedings before him, and the Judge of the Superior Court had no power to render judgment for such costs, State v. Wilson, ubi supra. The rule has since been altered by the Act defining \u201c Proceedings in criminal cases,\u201d arid the Judges of the Superior Courts are now invested with a large discretion upon questions of eosts in criminal actions. We think his Honor had the power to render a judgment against the defendants for the costs of the Superior Court, and as he did .not exercise his discretion in the matter, on the ground of a want of power, the judgment is overruled, but without costs in this Court against the defendants. We take occasion to remind the Judges of the Superior Courts, that we will not hereafter consider cases sent to this Court upon pro forma judgments, as this Court is entitled to the benefit of their well considered opinions upon questions of law, which may arise in such cases.\nLet this opinion be certified.\nPer Curiam. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dick, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Strong, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. ALLGOOD LOCUST and HAWKINS PEARSON\nHeretofore, the Superior Courts have had no power to give judgment for such of the costs upon a State warrant as accrued before the magistrate, who tried it and failed to give judgment for such costs. Now, the matter is regulated by Act of 10th April, 1869, \u201cProceedings in criminal cases,\u201d giving them control thereof.-\nCases sent up on pro forma judgments will not hereafter be considered.\n(Wilson\u2019s case, 1 Jon., 550, cited and approved.)\nMotioN to tax defendants with costs, heard by Thomas, J., at Wilson, Spring Term 1869.\nThe defendants had been bound before a magistrate to keep the peace towards one Hagan, &c., until that Term of the Court. At that Term tbe defendants appeared, but Hagan did not. Thereupon they moved to be discharged, and the Solicitor moved besides to have them taxed with costs.\nJUNE TERM, 1869. The State v. Locust and Peaeson.\nThe Court declined to tax the defendants with the costs because of a want of power so to do, and discharged them. The Solicitor appealed.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nStrong, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0574-01",
  "first_page_order": 590,
  "last_page_order": 592
}