{
  "id": 8687562,
  "name": "STATE v. THOMAS STYLES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Styles",
  "decision_date": "1877-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "156",
  "last_page": "157",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. 156"
    }
  ],
  "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": 183,
    "char_count": 2171,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.448,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30326034452201656
    },
    "sha256": "5ef1ee346cf0153fe4dcebff3ff5202d4d76e3ae946abbfe73a7653a09bd84ac",
    "simhash": "1:fe7d9d74a6b31dc5",
    "word_count": 365
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. THOMAS STYLES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eaikcloth, J.\nIn pursuance of an Act, 1868-9, ch. 81, the defendant was appointed overseer of a portion of the Western Turnpike Hoad, and was indicted in the Superior Court for neglecting to keep his part of said road in repair.\nThe 4th section declares that any such overseer who shall neglect for six continuous days to keep his allotment in a good and passable condition, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction pay a fine of ten dollars.\nArticle IV, \u00a7 33 of the Constitution declares, \u201cThe several Justices of the Peace shall have exclusive original jurisdiction under sucb regulations as the General Assembly shall prescribe * * * of all criminal matters arising within their counties, where the punishment cannot exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for one month.\u201d According to these provisions it seems clear that a Justice of the Peace has exclusive original jurisdiction of this offence and the question is not affected by some subsequent Acts of Assembly intended to divest the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in certain cases.\n. His Honor quashed the bill'of indictment for want of jurisdiction and we concur in his action.\nThere is no error. Let this be certified to the end, &c.\nPeR CuRIAM. \u25a0 Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eaikcloth, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Messrs. G. 8. Ferguson and J. G. L. Gudger, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. THOMAS STYLES.\nJurisdiction\u2014 Overseer of Western Turnpike Road\u2014 Neglect'of Duty.\nThe Courts of Justices of the Peace have exclusive original jurisdiction (under \u00a7 4, ch. 81, Laws 18G8-\u20199) of the offence of neglect of duty by overseers of the Western Turnpike Road.\nINDICTMENT for Misdemeanor, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of Jackson Superior Court, before Gannon, J\nThe defendant was overseer of a public road and charged with neglect of duty. Laws 1868-\u20199, ch. 81, \u00a7 4. Upon the ' trial in the Court below the defendant moved to quash the bill of indictment upon the ground that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction, because the Act of Assembly fixed the punishment at a fine of ten dollars.\nHis Honor allowed the motion and discharged the defendant. From this judgment the Solicitor for the State appealed.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nMessrs. G. 8. Ferguson and J. G. L. Gudger, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0156-01",
  "first_page_order": 168,
  "last_page_order": 169
}