Citation Numbers: 50 S.E. 213, 138 N.C. 571, 1905 N.C. LEXIS 302
Judges: Clark
Filed Date: 3/21/1905
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The defendant, convicted of assault and battery, assigns as error:
1. That the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. This was a matter for the judge below, and is not reviewable. McCord v. R.R.,
2. That the State was improperly permitted to challenge one E. H. Freeman tales juror, upon the ground that he was not a freeholder. The clerk of the Superior Court had issued to him a license under The Code, 3390-3392, Laws 1893, ch. 287, section 2, to lay off an oyster and clam bed in the waters of the State. This was not (572) an interest in land, but only a license to cultivate oysters within certain limits and upon prescribed conditions. S. v. Spencer,
3. The third and last exception is that the judge, having sentenced the defendant to thirty days' imprisonment in the county jail, directed that he be "assigned to the commissioners of the county to be worked on the public roads of said county according to law, during the term of his imprisonment." This is in pursuance of the terms of the statute, Laws 1887, ch. 355, section 1, which authorizes the court to sentence direct "to imprisonment and hard labor on the public roads for such terms as are now prescribed by law for their punishment in the county jails . . . all persons convicted of offenses the punishment whereof would otherwise be wholly or in part imprisonment in the county jail." Prior thereto, section 3448 of The Code conferred on the county commissioners of each county the power to provide rules and regulations for the working upon the public road of any person sentenced to jail "upon conviction of any crime or misdemeanor." In S. v. Norwood,
To the same effect is S. v. Pearson,
This Court declared in Myers v. Stafford,
S. v. Haynie,
To the same effect is S. v. Yandle,
And again in S. v. Smith,
The Constitution, Art. XI, section 1, specifies among the punishments authorized, "imprisonment with or without hard labor," and adds: *Page 413 "The foregoing provision for imprisonment with hard labor shall be construed to authorize the employment of such convict labor on public works or highways and other labor for public benefit." Under this authority for many years by repeated legislative enactments (beginning, indeed, in 1866, prior to the Constitution) to be found referred to in the headlines in section 3448 of The Code, and by the uniform and repeated decisions of this Court, "work upon the public roads" has been enacted and sustained.
This public policy was probably based upon the threefold consideration that prisoners would be healthier working in the open air than when confined in filthy and often overcrowded jails; that the taxpayers should not be burdened with sustaining them in idleness when they could earn their keep in some useful work for the public benefit; and that the fear of being seen by neighbors on the public roads might have a more deterrent effect than being hidden from sight and public observation behind the walls of a jail.
The argument was pressed on us that a justice of the peace might improperly exercise such power; but the defendant has protection by the right of appeal to the Superior Court in all cases. It (575) was also argued to us that the regulations under which prisoners worked on the road may be abused and be oppressive. But the officers are responsible for such misconduct, both civilly and criminally, and abuse is more liable to occur when prisoners are immured in jail than when working under the public eye. In both cases the humanity of the law requires that the regulations must be reasonable. The General Assembly under the authority of the Constitution having adopted work on the public road as a part of the punishment for misdemeanors and crimes, the courts have no power to declare such sentence void.
No error.
Cited: S. v. Morgan,
(576)
State v. . Norwood , 93 N.C. 578 ( 1885 )
State v. . Conner , 107 N.C. 931 ( 1890 )
State v. . Haynie , 118 N.C. 1265 ( 1896 )
State v. . Hicks , 101 N.C. 747 ( 1888 )
State v. . Pearson , 100 N.C. 414 ( 1888 )
Rea v. . Hampton , 101 N.C. 51 ( 1888 )
McCready v. Virginia , 24 L. Ed. 248 ( 1877 )
Myers v. . Stafford , 114 N.C. 234 ( 1894 )
State v. . Weathers , 98 N.C. 685 ( 1887 )
State v. . Yandle , 119 N.C. 874 ( 1896 )