The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-10-03

taken by legislative enactment from
the clerk Of the Superior court and
conferred upon another, during the term
Of the former. Bunty VS.. Gales.
And no one ever dreamed that the
Legislature did not have the power TO
reduce the limits of judicial district,
even though the fees of a solicitor were
thereby reduced.
IS. That the Western criminal circuit
Is an aggregation of county courts
each entirely distinct from and III no
way connected with the other, each ca
pable of continuing all OF the functions
though all the others might be abolished.
And that the criminal court of Bun
combe county was the nucleus around
which this galaxy of courts grew.
%. That chapter 70, Laws of 1898,
created the first criminal circuit, which
circuit was formed of the four counties
of Buncombe, Henderson. Haywood and
Madison, and that the plaintiff was, IN
1896. elected solicitor of that district;
and il he has vested right under Hoke
VS. Henderson, in any office, it is in
that. And that he has no right TO the
office of solicitor in any other county
which is hot defeasible by legislative
act.
10. That if the Western criminal dis
trict was a Superior court district, no
question would arise over the right of
the Legislature to add or take off one
or more counties.
Il. The contention of the plaintiff
to the five added counties could only
be sustained, provided that district We're
creation Of the constitution and not,
as it is, Of the Legislature.
'.12. That the provision in the act of
1895, that there should be 'one solicit
tor for the district is repeaIable by any
subsequent act showing different pur-
pose. and that if relator holds what he
acquired by his election in 1896, he has
all to which he can lay claim.
"13. That il the acts of 1899 are eff
fectiye, then the defendants Eayes,
Gardner, Avery and Griffith are the
prosecutors on behalf of the State in
their respective counties-for those acts
have created certain county courts, each
separate and distinct and In no way
dependent on the other
II. That if those acts are not eff
| fective, then Harshaw and Mott are,
and the relator, is not prosecutor in
| those counties.
10. That if any one has, under Hoke
VS.. Henderson, property in the office
of prosecuting attorney, in the five
added counties, those persons are the
solicitors of the Ninth and Tenth dis
triots, who were elected last fall to con-
stitutional offices, and thereby made a
contract with the State to perform those
services until January 1st, 1903.
MIR. WEBB'S CONTENTION.
Speaking next, for Mr. Webb, Demo
cratic solicitor for Buncombe, Mr.. Cobb
contended that the statute Of 1899 rob-
| bed and dismantled the Superior court
| of its powers in contrayention OF the
constitution which forbids any interior
| ence with the jurisdiction of the Supe-
rior or Supreme courts by the Legisla-
| ture. The Legislature may allot and
distribute the jurisdiction but it has
not done this, but has taken the juris-
| diction exclusively from one court and
has given it exclusively to another
/ He contended further that as the con.
stitution said nothing of any solicitor
| save that whose election is provided foI
| in the constitution. In the ease of Will
/ sonavs. Jordan it dismantled the Supe
| rior court, that If it could do this in
1 one county it could III all, if it could dc
| it by assigning to another court it could
/ without assigning to another. In regard
| to the civil side of the matter, Mr.
/ Cobb said there was no difference as
| to the power the Legislature had in
assigning civil and criminal jurisdiction
| and it followed with double force that
the act was in conflict with the constitu.
/ ton.
THE CASE OF MIR. ZACHARY.
Judge Shuford, for Mr. Zachary,
| Democratic solicitor Of Madison, said
| that the authorities in the case had been
| cited in Wilson VS.. Jordan and in the
| Day case and he saw no need of put
| ting in a brief. He proceeded on the
theory that the court would not over
| rule itself in that case as it had be-
come wel-grounded principle. He
| commended that the constitution under
| took to fix the jurisdiction Of the Su-
preme court and left the allotting Of In
| ferior jurisdiction entirely to the Legis
Iature. 1t did not give to solicitors OF
| Superior courts any exclusive right to
| prosecute in criminal matters save when