{ "id": 8683285, "name": "THE STATE v. WILLIAM DRAKE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Drake", "decision_date": "1870-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "589", "last_page": "591", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 N.C. 589" } ], "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": 307, "char_count": 4612, "ocr_confidence": 0.387, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8423223023812985e-07, "percentile": 0.8400265807002648 }, "sha256": "807e921091a0db79091c23933db157b8eb6edc38599e77e97fb777ee547d6419", "simhash": "1:8ed5c2d984a12459", "word_count": 821 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE STATE v WILLIAM DRAKE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Settle, J.\nThis indictment is founded upon the act of 1868-\u20199, ch. 18, which enacts \u201c that if any person or persons whosoever shall be known to hunt in this State on the Sabbath with a dog or dogs, or shall be found off of their premises, on the Sabbath, having with him or them a shot gun, rifle or pistol, he or they shall be subject to indictment, and upon conviction shall pay a flue not exceeding fifty dollars at the discretion of the Court,\u2019 \u2019&c.\nThe first objection is to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court: the defendant contending that, as the punishment does not exceed fifty dollars, the offence is cognizable only by a Justice of the Peace.\nThe general rule is, that the Superior Court has jurisdiction of all offences; the exceptions to this rule are rare.\nThe act of 1868-9, ch. 178, confers and regulates the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in certain cases, and provides that no justice shall have final jurisdiction to determine any criminal action or proceeding for any offence whatsoever, unless it shall appear on the complaint, and upon the proof before him:\n\u201c1. That the offence was committed within his Township,.\n2. That the complaint is not made by collusion with the accused, and that it is made by the party injured by the offence,\n3. That it is made within six months after the commission of the alleged offence. The complaint shall be in writing and under oath, but need not be in any particular form.\u201d\nIt certainly was not the intention of the Legislature to enact that, unless these prerequisites are complied with, the guilty parties are to go unpunished, and the Superior Courts are ousted of their general jurisdiction. The only purpose was, to confer a limited jurisdiction upon Justices of the Peace; restricted within the narrow limits prescribed by the act. If from any cause the Justice of the Peace has not exercised his jurisdiction, the Superior Court takes cognizance by virtue of its general jurisdiction: State v. Johnson, ante, 581.\nAgain, it is objected, that, whereas the indictment charges, that the defendant \u00a3i on the first day of October 1869, &c., was found off of his premises on the Sabbath day, having, with him a shot gun,\u201d &c., the said first day of October did not in point of fact fall on the Sabbath. Ordinarily the day of the week need not be stated, but if the offence consists in doing a particular thing on Sunday, the indictment must aver that it was Sunday on which it was done: 1 Bish. Cr. Pro. 521. But the statement of the day of the month in an indictment for committing an offence on Sunday, though the doing of the act on that day is the gist of the offence, is not more material than in other cases; and hence if the indictment charge the offence to have been committed on Sunday, though it name as the day of the month one which does not fall on Sunday, it is good: Whart. Or. Law, s. 263.\nIt was suggested upon the argument that the statute uses the word Sabbath instead of Sunday, which is the term usually employed in our previous legislation.\nThe words are not strictly synonomous; the one signifying Saturday, the seventh day of the week, the Jewish Sabbath; the other, the first day of the week, commonly called the Lord\u2019s day.\nBut, by common usage, the terms are used indiscriminately to denote the Christian Sabbath, to-wit: Sunday.\nIn State v. Williams, 4 Ire. 400, Ruffin, C. J., uses the words as synonymous.\nThere was error in the ruling of his Honor upon the special verdict.\nThis will be certified, &c.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Settle, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General and W. R. Gox, for the State.", "G. M. Busbee, contra." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE STATE v WILLIAM DRAKE.\n'The Superior Courts have jurisdiction of all offences except such as have been heard, or are pending, before a Justice, according to the terms of the Act of 1868- 9, c. 178.\nAn indictment for an act -which is criminal when committed upon Sunday, must state that the act in question was committed upon Sunday; but if it do so, no exception can be taken to it for referring to the same day by a wrong day of the month.\nIt is immaterial that the indictment use the expression, \u201c the Sabbath \u201d instead of \u201c Sunday.\u201d\n(State v. Williams, 11 Ire. 400; State v. Johnson, ante 581, approved.)\nINDICTMENT, for hunting with a gun upon Sunday, tried before Watts, J., at Spring Term 1870, of Nash Court.\nThe indictment charged the offence to haye been committed il on the 1st day of October 1868,\u201d &c., \u201c on the Sabbath \u25a0day,\u201d &c., &c,\nA special verdict having been found in accordance.with the indictment, his Honor gave judgment for the defendant, .and the Solicitor for the State appealed.\nAttorney General and W. R. Gox, for the State.\nG. M. Busbee, contra." }, "file_name": "0589-01", "first_page_order": 613, "last_page_order": 615 }