Case Name: THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. J. BEDFORD ROBERTS, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1873-01
Citations: 8 Nev. 239
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. J. BEDFORD ROBERTS, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 239–242

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. J. BEDFORD ROBERTS, Appellant.
No Valid Conviction except at Legal Tebm oe Court. Where a person was tried and found guilty of crime at a term of the district court, which was not authorized by statute: Held, that such conviction was void.
No Legal Term of Coukt except at Time Prescribed. .Where the June term of a district court was fixed by statute to commence on June 5; but the judge did not make his appearance until June 22 and then held what purported to be the June term, without however having ordered an adjournment as provided by law (Stats. 1869, 136): Held, that the June term had lapsed and that all the proceedings were coram non judice.
Provision to Prevent Loss of Teem. The purpose of section 82 of the act concerning courts and providing for adjournments (Stats. 1869. 136) is to prevent the loss of a term in case of the failure of the judge to attend on the first day of the term.
Time and Place of Holding Codbts — Cektainty. The intention of the legisla^ ture in prescribing the times for the commencement and the place for holding the terms of the district court is to attain certainty.
No Valid Judgment excedt at Pbesckibed Time and Place. It is indispensable to the validity of a judgment that it be rendered at the time and place prescribed by law.
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Washoe County.
The defendant, together with one Charles Beaver, was indicted for robbing Walter M. Thomas of $93 in coin on January 31, 1871. The cause was to have regularly come on for trial at the June term, 1871, of the district court at Reno. It was called and the trial proceeded on July 10. On motion of the district attorney, Beaver was discharged on the understanding that he was to be used as a witness for the State; and Roberts was conyicted of robbery as charged and sentenced to imprisonment in the State prison for the term of ten years. ' .
On the calling of the ease for trial the defendant’s counsel objected to proceeding on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction for the reason that there was no legal term. In support” of their objection they showed that the day prescribed by law for the commencement .of the June term, 1871, was June 5 and the place Reno; that no such term of court was held or called to be held in Reno prior to June 22; and that no judge had before the expiration of one week from June 5 ordered the court to be adjourned to any day within the June term, “except that said court .was called at Washoe City and there adjourned and then held from day to day during said week and up to and including the 21st day of June, 1871.”. The objections were overruled and defendant .excepted.
A motion for new trial having been overruled, defendant appealed from the judgment and order.
R. H. Taylor and A. O. Mlis, for Appellant.
L. A. BucJmer, Attorney General, for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Belknap, J.:
The legislature of the State of Nevada at its fourth session appointed the first Monday in 'January, June and October as the days for the commencement of the terms of the district court in the County of Washoe. The district judge did not appear at Reno, the county seat, for the purpose of holding the June term of court until the twenty-second day of June; nor was there any pretense to adjourn court at any time prior to that date in compliance with the provisions of section 52 of the act concerning courts of justice and judicial officers, as amended March 5, 1869. At the term thus Rolden the defendant was tried; and the only question necessary to a determination of this appeal is whether he was tried' at a legal term of court.
Amended section 52, referred to, reads as follows: "If no judge attend on the day appointed to hold the court before noon, the sheriff or clerk shall adjourn the court until the next day at ten o'clock, and if no judge attend on that day before noon the sheriff or clerk shall adjourn the court until the following day, and so on from day to day for one week; if no judge attend for one week the sheriff or clerk shall adjourn the court for the term; provided, before the expiration of one week the judge shall order by letter or telegram to adjourn the court to any day within the term,sthe sheriff or clerk shall adjourn the court to the day so ordered."
The purpose of this statute is to prevent a loss of the term in case of the failure of the judge to attend on the first day of the term. "Leave this section out of the statute and the loss of a term is the consequence of a failure of a judge to appear on the day appointed for holding the court. " People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17. Hence the term was lost unless saved by the proceedings at Washoe City.
Section 18 of the act before referred to provides that "the terms of the district court shall be held.at the county seat of the several counties. " In exceptional cases the judge is authorized to hold court at a place other than the county seat; but it is not pretended that any of tbe statutory exceptions existed in tbis case. Tbe intention of tbe legislature in prescribing tbe time for tbe commencement and tbe place for bolding tbe terms of tbe district court was to attain certainty. Tbe principle of a fixed notice by tbe legislature rests upon public convenience; otherwise suitors, grand and trial jurors and others interested in tbe proceedings of tbe court would be kept in attendance upon an uncertainty of time and place. " Certain fixed times and places " were said by Spelman to be essential to tbe existence of a court; and these essentials have been recognized by lexicographers, text-writers and judges ever since bis time. It is indispensable to tbe validity of a judgment that it be rendered at tbe time and place prescribed by law: tbe proceedings in tbis case were therefore coram non judice and void.
Tbe judgment of tbe district court is reversed, and tbe cause remanded for a new trial.