Case Name: State v. Roberts
Court: North Carolina Superior Court
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1795-04
Citations: 1 Hayw. 201
Docket Number: 
Parties: State v. Roberts.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
State v. Roberts.
Indictments containing’ three counts, the first of which the Court had no cognizance of. To ■subnet on the first count l_the others not to be const fered) would oust the Court of jurisdiction. Submission cannot be made upon one count without all, unless notpros, is entered as to the other counts. Upon assaults with intent to kill, the Court may punish by fine only.
He was indicted for an assault and battery, stated in three counts: in the first, for a common assault and bat- (ei.y . |n the second, for an assault with intent to kill ail<j mlirder; in the third, for an assault and wounding with intent to kill and murder. Gen. Davie for the Defendant, upon an agreement between him and the Solici-for-General, offered to submit upon the first count, and the other counts should not be considered at all. Per curiam, if he submits upon that only the court cannot take any notice of the offence, being ousted of original jurisdiction by the act of 1790, ch. 3. sec. 8. which directs, “that all indictments for assaults, batteries and pe-tit larcenies, shall in future originate in the county courts of pleas and quarter-sessions only.” These words are equivalent to express negative words, which it'is said are necessary to oust this court of jurisdiction, and the Defendant cannot by Ms admission give to the court cogr nizanre of an offence which by law they have no cognizance of, any more than a prisoner indicted for a capital felony, could by his admission give authority to a county court to pass sentence upon him. Neither can there be a submission for part of the indictment only — he must submit as to all the counts in the indictment if he submits at all, unless the Solicitor-General will enter a noli pro~ sequi as to some. Et per curiam, this court are not obliged to imprison upon a conviction for an assault with intent to kilt — they may inflict imprisonment, the pillory and a fine, but they may inflict some or one of them only. 4 Bl. Com. 217, means only that, the court have a discretionary power of inflicting the punishments there mentioned, not that they are obliged to inflict all of them. He submitted, and the witnesses for the State were examined, and the court fined him only.

Opinion:
Note. — That the consent or admissions of parties cannot give a Court jurisdiction. See Waggoner v. Grove, Gonf. Rep. 516.