State v. . Aiken
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Proceeding to enforce a penalty against defaulting witness, begun before the Mayor of Brevard, and heard on appeal at Fall Term, 1893, of Tjraksylvania Superior Court, before Arm field, J., who dismissed the action, on motion of the respondents, on the ground that the Mayor had no authority to impose the fine, either under the general law or under chapter 110, Pr. Acts of 1889, incorporating the town. The State appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Clajuc, J.:
The defendant, or, more properly, the respondent, was a defaulting witness in a criminal proceeding before the Mayor of Brevard against one Dock Rhodes for violation of a town ordinance. A notice issued to show' cause why he should not be fined for contempt in disobeying the subpcena of the Court. The respondent appeared, but the Court adjudged that he had not shown good cause, and fined him eight dollars. Upon appeal to the Superior Court, his Honor dismissed the proceeding, upon the ground that the Mayor had no authority to impose the fine.
In this there was error. In re Deaton,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In Re DeatonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. Hill.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- American National Bank v. FountainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- State v. . SingletonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Smathers v. Toxaway Hotel Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Merchants National Bank v. BransonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.