Court Opinion

ID: 9810274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:45:16.593079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:33.062094
License: Public Domain

Schenck, J.
This appeal poses but one question, namely: Did the judge of the Superior Court on his own motion, in his own discretion and in the furtherance of justice, have the authority to transfer the case from Haywood to Macon County?
We are of opinion and so hold that the answer is in the affirmative. When the judge of the Superior Court is confronted with a state of facts, as was his Honor, Judge Alley, we think the court had the inherent power ex mero motu to order a change of venue.
“. . . according to the weight of authority a court in a criminal case has inherent power, even in the absence of express statutory authority, *261to order a change in a place of trial from one county to another if and when satisfied that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had within the county where the venue is laid in the indictment. Such power existed at common law, and, therefore, unless specifically denied by statute, still adheres in the courts of the country. . . . The authority to change the venue of civil cases under appropriate circumstances seems also' to have existed at common law and to have become a part of our judicial system.” 27 R. C. L., sec. 30, p. 810. See also opinion of Stacy, C. J., in concurring opinion in Miller v. Miller, 205 N. C., 753, 172 S. E., 493, in which he states: “It is conceded that a court of general jurisdiction such as our Superior Courts may have inherent power, even in the absence of express statutory authority, to order a change of venue,” citing Crocker v. Justices, 208 Mass., 162, 21 Ann. Cas., 1061, and Note.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.