{
  "id": 1955410,
  "name": "THE STATE v. R. B. PENDLETON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pendleton",
  "decision_date": "1871-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "617",
  "last_page": "619",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 N.C. 617"
    }
  ],
  "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": "64 N. C. 581",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683275
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0581-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3808,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.425,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.07069466212122792
    },
    "sha256": "6c78e5fcc45b8496cfc68d04c4eb9ffa3defc9eb231ff278e98a8558a6d9ecb9",
    "simhash": "1:c3e2c3b50f301c64",
    "word_count": 661
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:56.423501+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. R. B. PENDLETON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Boyden, J.\nThe act of 1869, chap.- 178, which in sub. ch. 6, regulates \u201cthe final jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in criminal actions,\u201d was intended to embrace the offences enumerated and committed under the circumstances stated in said act, and not such offences of which Justices of the Peace have original exclusive jurisdiction by the 33d sec. of Article IY of the Constitution.\nThis act sub. chap. 4, sec. 6, enacts that \u201cno Justice of the Peace shall have final jurisdiction to determine any criminal action or proceeding for any offence whatever, unless it shall appear on the complaint and upon proof before him:\n\u201c 1st. That the offence was commited within his township;\n\u201c 2d. That the complaint is not made by collusion with the accused, and that it is made by the party injured by the offence;\n\u201c 3d. That it is made within, six months after the commission of the alleged offence.\n\u201c The complaint shall be made in writing and under oath, but need not be in any particular form.\u201d\nThe defendant pleaded a former conviction before a Justice of the Peace of the township where the alleged offence was charged to have been committed.\nThis plea, it was admitted, contained every requisite of a perfect defence, except that it did not allege that it appeared on the complaint that it was made without collusion with the accused, although it did appear upon proof at the trial of the Justice that such was the fact.\nThe Solicitor demurred to this plea of the defendant, and his Honor sustained the demurrer, and .fined the defendant one penny. There was no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.\nThe Court deems this act conferring upon Justices of the Peace final jurisdiction in these minor offences a remedial \u00a1statute of much importance; as it is calculated to save much time and expense, and the Court is disposed to give it a liberal \u00a1construction, and to uphold this jurisdiction whenever it can be done, without violating the express provisions of the statute.\nThe question raised in this case, has already been settled by two adjudications in this Court. State v. Johnson, 64 N. C. 581, and State v. Davis, ante 298.\nThis Court cannot approve of the course adopted in this case. The defendant had already been sufficiently punished by the Justice of the Peace, and the only defect in the proceedings was the want of a mere formal averment in the complaint, that it was made without collusion.\nWe think that where parties have been fully punished by a proceeding before Justices, and where there has been no fraud \u25a0or collusion, parties should never be indicted and punished a \u25a0second time, for a mere oversight in the Justice, who tried the .case.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Boyden, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Bailey, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. R. B. PENDLETON.\nBefore a Justice of the Peace can. have final jurisdiction of any criminal offence, it must appear in the complaint and upon proof that each and every requisite prescribed in sub. chap. 4, sec. 6, of chap. 178 of the act of 1869, has been strictly pursued.\n(Observations as to the duty of Solicitors where parties have been Iona fide punished before Justices of the Peace.)\nState v. Johnson, 64 N. O. 581; State v. Davis, ante 298, cited and approved.\nAssault and battery, tried before Cloud, J., at Spring Term, 1871, of Rowan Superior Court.\nThe defendant relied upon the plea of former conviction and judgment before a Justice of the Peace. The plea averred that there had been a literal compliance with all the requirements of sub. ch. 4, sec. 6 of ch. 178, Acts of 1869. It did not, however, aver \u201c that the complaint was not made by collusion with the accused, and that it was made by the party injured by the offence.\u201d The Solicitor for the State demurred to said plea.\nDemurrer sustained. Judgment and appeal. '\nAttorney General, for the State.\nBailey, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0617-01",
  "first_page_order": 627,
  "last_page_order": 629
}