The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-06-12
SUPREME COURT
REVERSES ITSELF
And Wipes Out a Part of the
Constitution.
GIVE MARSH MOTT A FEE
A Revolutionary Opinion Handed
Down Last Week.
GIVE MARSH MOTT A FEE
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
The lcerse Tax on Piano ard Organ Dealers.
Child Labor in Cotton Mills. Cases on
Which The Supreme Court Has
Been Equally Divided.


things, but the browning act of the
performance came last Thursday
when, to retain for a Republican of
fetal a petty salary, it boldly disre-
garded the State Constitution and re-
versed a long line of it's own decis-
ions, declaring that to be law which
heretofore it has said was not law,
namely: That Superior courts have
original jurisdiction in criminal cases,
of constitutional right and not of
legislative enactment.
A decision. that if carried out. must
have the practical effect of breaking
up the criminal courts of the State.
The question came up on suit
brought by Marsh. Mott, solicitor for
the Ninth Judicial district, to cam
pei the commissioners of Forsyth
county to draw grand jury, notwith-
standing an act of the Legislature
which says it shall not be done. The
real motive of the suit, however, was
to get fees for Marsh. Mott. The
Supreme court gives them, though in
doing SO it boldly wipes out an amend
ment to the State Constitution and
plainly over-rules a long line of it's
own decisions.
The opinion of the court is written
by Justice Furches, Justice Clark dis
senting in an opinion that makes rich
reading. He says:
'The very utmost that was reserved
to the Superior courts, after the
amendments of 1875. is that they re-
tain the headship of the judicial sys-
tenn below the Supreme court. and
that from them alone appeals lie to
this court and that appeals lie to the
Superior court from justices of the
peace. Sec. 27. Art. IN. Whatever
jurisdiction the Superior courts have
beyond this is a matter of Legislative
enactment and not of Constitutional
right. as the court Gas now constitut-
ED has over and again decided.
I'm Ryne VS.. Lipscomb. 122 n. c.,
at page 655, this court said: Subject
to these constitutional restrictions
Gust recited as being the right of ap-
peal from Justice to the Superior
courts, and that all appeals to this
court must come from the Superior
courts.) The General Assembly may
alot the jurisdiction below the SUI
preme court. 1t may create criminal
courts, or circuit courts, city courts,
or other courts and give them all or
such part as it thinks proper, of the
original criminal or original civil jur-
isdiction above that given bv the con-
stitution to justices of the peace, and
even as to that it may confer con
current original jurisdiction with the
justices of the peace, for their Jurls-
diction is not exclusive?
''This decision is expressly in point,
was concurred in by all the judges,
and adiudged that the Legislature had
power to give to the criminal courts
all the original civil and criminal
jurisdiction heretofore used by the
Superior courts-but denied that the
Legislature could make them the
equal of the Superior courts by taking
away the headship of the Superior
court through its appellate supervis-
ion of them.
In Tate VS.. Commissioners, 122 n. c.,
at page 663, this court again said:
1T is competent for the General AS
sembly to give to said circuit court, or
any other court it may erect, original
jurisdiction. either exclusive or con-
current, with the Superior court,
civil as well as criminal of all mat
tiers which may originate in said
counties, subject to the right of appeal
therefrom to the Superior courts.
I'm Pate VS.. Railroad 1872 N. c., at
page S79 it is said that Article ",
section IL conferred on the Legisla-
ture power to give to courts created
by it original jurisdiction, exclusive
or concurrent with the Superior
court subject only to appellate SUI
pervision over such subordinate court
by the Superior courts. since appeals
lay to this court only from the Supe-
rior courts.
.'In State VS.. Bonnie Raw. 1872 n c..
at page 1898. it is said that the Act
creating the criminal court of Bun
combe and etc, 1.-THE court whose
jurisdiction is here called in question:
'confers upon said court exclusive
original jurisdiction of all crimes. mis-
demeanors and offences committed
with the counties composing said dis
tricts. And adds that the court has
held that provisions of the Statute
valid in Rhyme VS.. Lipscombe, supra
and reaffirms that decision.
estate VS.. Rumbough. 1872 n. C.,
11O4 and State VS.. Potsell. 1872 \. c.,
11O5 were decided upon the ruling in
State VS.. Bonnie Ray supra.
'.In Malloy VS.. Fayetteville. 122 \.
c.. at page 1872 the above cases of
Rhyme VS.. Lipscorpbe. Tate VS.. Com
missioners and State VS.. Ray. were all
cited on the point that the power OF
the General Assembly to alot and dis
tribute the jurisdiction below this
court was unlimited save as in those
cases stated Gas above reciteD.
"The same three cases were cited as
authority by Faircloth, c. j.. in State
VS.. Hinson, 1913 N. c., 755, the court
holding that the defendant was not
entitled to trial de novo by jury in
the Superior court, but only to an APP
peal upon matters of law, as the Leg
isalture had so prescribed and that
it had the right to so prescribe under
Constitution Article ", section IL,