{
  "id": 11276300,
  "name": "THE STATE v. LOUIS LACHMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lachman",
  "decision_date": "1887-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "763",
  "last_page": "765",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.C. 763"
    }
  ],
  "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": 269,
    "char_count": 4216,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3675314661202255
    },
    "sha256": "0c296807c92b93eb138ab5fa7ba1644f6390c76cb643b4e30850f2b4cd42ede9",
    "simhash": "1:b4fb47a94e0a67ca",
    "word_count": 734
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:55.485321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. LOUIS LACHMAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Davis, J.,\n(after stating the case). The evidence is set out in the case stated, but it is apparent upon the record that the Superior Court did not have'jurisdiction, and the judgment must be arrested.\nThe prosecution was intended to punish for a violation of Chapter 135, section 23, of the Acts of 1887, which, among other things, imposes a tax of fifty dollars on itinerant salesmen, commonly known as \u201cCheap John\u201d merchants, and requires a license to be obtained by them before selling. Section 35 of the act makes it a misdemeanor for such persons to sell merchandise without first paying the tax and obtaining the license, punishable \u201c by a. fine not exceeding $50, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days.\u201d It also subjects them to a penalty of $50, which penalty it is the duty of the Sheriff to cause to be recovered.\nThe punishment imposed, not exceeding a fine of $50, or imprisonment for thirty days, the justice of the peace, under \u00a7892 of The Code, had exclusive original jurisdiction within six months. There was no trial had before the magistrate, and no judgment, and consequently there could be no appeal, by which alone the appellate Court could acquire jurisdiction. The justice of the peace seems only to have exercised his functions as a committing magistrate, and required the defendant to enter into bond for his appearance to answer in the Superior Court, and this seems to have been treated as an appeal. There was no bill of indictment found by a grand jury.\nThis was erroneous. It is a criminal prosecution, and though no exception has been filed, nor any motion made to correct the judgment, it is nevertheless our duty to examine the record, and see if there is any error in it. State v. Wilson, Phil. Law, 237.\nThere is error, and the judgment must be arrested.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Davis, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. LOUIS LACHMAN.\nJurisdiction \u2014 Justices of the Peace.\nWhere, upon the return of a warrant charging an offence of which a justice of the peace had exclusive jurisdiction, the record showed that the defendant waived a trial, and thereupon it was adjudged that he enter into bond for his appearance at the next term of the Superior Court, and at said term the record showed that \u201c upon the foregoing warrant and appeal the case came on to be tried,\u201d the defendant pleaded not guilty, a verdict and judgment thereon against him; Held, that the Superior Court had not the acquired jurisdiction.\n(State v. Wilson, Phil., 287, cited).\nCriminal ACTION, tried before Merrimon, Judge, at Fall Term, 1887, of JohNSTOn Superior Court.\nOn the 10th day of May, 1887, D. W. Fuller made oath before C. W. Edgerton, a justice of the peace for the county of Johnston, that in said county, \u201c on or about the 10th day of May, 1887, Louis Lachman did, contrary to law, offer for sale, on the streets of Smithfield, to the highest bidder, merchandise as a \u2018Cheap John\u2019 merchant, contrary to the statute,\u201d &c.\nUpon this affidavit a warrant was issued by the said justice of the peace on the same day for the arrest of the said Lachman, and commanding that he be brought before the said justice of the peace, or \u201c some magistrate of said county immediately, to answer the above complaint, and be dealt with as the law directs.\u201d\nThis warrant was returned \u201cexecuted\u201d on the 10th of May, 1887, whereupon the following entry was made on the back thereof:\n\u201c The defendant, Louis Lachman, waives a trial, and thereupon it is adjudged that he enter into a bond in the sum of two hundred dollars, for his appearance at the next term of the Superior Court, to be held at the court-house in Smith-field, on the 3d Monday before the 1st Monday in September, 1887.\u201d\nThis was dated 10th May, 1887, and signed by the justice of the peace.\nThe case came on at next term of the Superior Court, and the record sets out that:\n\u201cUpon the foregoing warrant and appeal the case came on for trial, ***** when the defendant, Louis Lachman, by his attorney, plead not guilty. Whereupon the following jurors (naming them), being chosen, &c. * * * * for their verdict, say that they find the defendant guilty.\u201d\nUpon this verdict there was a judgment, from which the defendant appealed.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0763-01",
  "first_page_order": 795,
  "last_page_order": 797
}