The news & observer., 1898-02-23
JUDGE CLARK'S OPINION
THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION
IN CIVIL CASES.
THE OTHER DECISIONS HANDED DOWN
A Clearly Worded Opinion by Justice Walter
Clark, in Which the Entire Court Con-
curs-'The Appeals to be
Called Next tuesday,

Called Next ueSdaY.
The Supreme court yesterday handed
down a number of important decisions,
and among the number was that written
by Justice Clark in the case of Rhyme
Us. Lipscombe, from Buncombe.
This case is of great interest in West
ern North Carolina, and was Il test as
to the jurisdiction of the Criminal courts
over which Judges Ewart and Sutton
preside
This case was the one of chief inn
portance. and in the cases of Tate VS..
Commissioners, and State VS.. Ray, the
appeals were dismissed and reference
made to the first mentioned.
The one roint which the decision most
forcibly impresses is contained in the
following extract from the decision:
THE Constitution, Art. " Sec ,, es-
tablished the Supreme court, superior
courts and justices of the peace, and au-
thorizes the legislature to create other
courts inferior to the Supreme court.
Section Il of the same article provides
that the Geenral Assembly shall have
no power to deprive the Judicial Depart
ment of any power or jurisdiction which
rightfully pertains to it, but that it shall
allot and distribute that portion of this
power and jurisdiction which does not
pertain to the Supreme court, among
the other courts prescribed in this Con-
Stituti0n, or which may be established
by law in such manner as it may deem
best, SO far as the same may be done
without conflict with other provisions of
this Constitution.
Under the Constitution of the United
States, Art. III, Sec. l. the Supreme
court alone is created and all other
courts are the creatures of Congress.
hence Congress has created and abolish
cd Districts, and also created and
abolished a system of Circuit courts, at
will. But under our State Constitution
the Superior courts and courts of the
Justice Of the Peace are created by
the Constitution itself, nd the General
Assembly cannot abolish Them The
term Superior Court" had a well defin-
ed significance at the time of the ad0p-
tion of the Constitution. and the Ian
guage Of that instrument must be taken
as referring thereto. The Superior court
was considered of so much importance
that by Section 10. IL and u, Article
IN, the people are guaranteed the right
to elect the judges, their terms are
fixed, and it was provided that each
judge thereof shall reside in the district
for which he IL elected; that the indges
shall rotate, ad that no judge thereof.
shall hold the courts of the same dis
trict oftener chan once in four years,
&C.
The opinion recites that the General
Assembly cannot create new court
with substantially the same jurisdiction
as the Superior court.
The other opinions handed down are
as follows:
Cowan VS.. Phillips, from Beaufort,
modified and affirmed.
Tate ". Commissioners, from Hay
wood, action dismissed.
State VS.. Ray, from Buncombe, appeal
| dismissed.
Rhyme vs.. Lpscombe. from Buncombc,
| Judgment quashed and cause remanded
| to the Superior court of Buncombe
county.
Wilson VS.. Bank, from Pitt, affirmed.
Evans VS.. Cullens, from HertfOrd,
sanderlin VS.. Sanderlin, from Camden,
| affirmed.
Harrell VS.. Railroad from Gates, af-
| firmed
In re Ausburn, from Washington, re-
/ versed.
| Timber Company vs. R0untree from
| Chowan, new trial.
Wick VS.. Baker, from Northampton,
| error.
Station VS.. Wimberly from Edge
combe, affirmed.
Manning VS.. Railroad, from Bertie,
4 affirmed.
Britton VS.. Ruffin, from Bertie, new
| trial.
Byrd VS.. Bazemore, from BERTHE, af-
| firmed.
Parker VS.. Harden, from Bertie, ap-
| peal, dismissed.
Whitaker VS.. Dunn, from Halifax,
| appeal dismissed.
Appeals from the Fourth District will
be called next Tuesday, March 1st, as
| follows:
| State VS.. Hester
Crenshaw VS.. Purifoy.
Smith VS.. Thompson.
Moseley VS.. Gross.
Shaffer VS.. Bledsoe.
/ Maroon VS.. Adams
Smith VS.. Montague.
Blake v1s. Blake.
Ice Manufacturing Company VS.. Rail
road Company.
Marshburn VS.. Lashley.
House VS.. Arnold.
Fort VS.. Penny
Scarborough VS.. Scarborough.
| Maroon VS.. Railroad.
Arnold VS.. Porter.
Eass VS.. Brewer
The third district cases were disposed
| of yesterday as follows:
State VS.. Barnes, argued by the At
torney General for the State; Aycock
md Daniels; Battle and Thorn, and ].
| e. Woodard for defendant.
State VS.. Hedgepeth; argued by Attor-
ney General for State; w. NJ. Person for
| defendant.
sugg VS.. Bernard; argued by Shepherd
4