The statute (The Code, § 2014), confers upon the Board of County Commissioners “ full power and authority within their respective counties * * * * to order the laying out of public roads when necessary,” and it *553further prescribes (The Code, §§ 2038, 2039, 2040), in what case, and when and how, such - roads shall be laid out and established.
Although the proceedings of tire County Commissioners, in respect to the road in question, are not, in all respects, regular, we are, nevertheless, of the opinion that they were sufficient to- establish a public highway, that the defendant and all other persons were bound to recognize and treat as such, until such proceedings should be reversed, modified, or set aside in a proper proceeding for the purpose.
A petition in writing, signed by several persons interested in the proposed road, designating the terminal points, was laid before the Commissioners of the County of Burke, and likewise a counter petition. Upon consideration, the commissioners made an order that the road, as prayed for, be laid out, and that the Sheriff summon a jury for that purpose. The order designated, with particularity, the terminal points of the road to be laid out. The Sheriff summoned a jury who, in obedience to the order and summons, assembled and were sworn, and they laid out between the terminal points designated, with much particularity, the road in question, and made report of their action to the County Commissioners, who confirmed the same, and then made an order directing the Sheriff to open the road strictly as laid out by the jury; thereafter the Sheriff did so, and made re' -turn of his action.
Thus a tribunal, having jurisdiction over the subject of public roads, and having an application before it to establish such a road, took action in that respect, and purported, in pursuance of the leading essential provisions of the statute, applicable in such case, to establish the road in question. The proceedings of that tribunal may have been erroneous; they wTere, as we can see, in some respects not essential to the jurisdiction of the commissioners, irregular, but they were not necessarily void; on the contrary, they were valid *554until reversed. The actions and decisions of tribunals, having jurisdiction -to accomplish-a purpose contemplated and allowed by law, are not to be treated lightly, ignored and disregarded by whoever may see fit to do so. When it appears that the jurisdiction attaches, the presumption is in favor of the proper exercise of it, unless the contrary clearly appears, and the action or determination of such tribunal will be upheld, however erroneous or irregular in matters of detail, until corrected, modified, or reversed, by the proper authority. Little v. May, 3 Hawks, 599; State v. Spainhour, 2 D & B., 547; Woolard v. McCullough, 1 Ired., 432; Welch v. Piercy, 7 Ired., 365; State v. Davis, 68 N. C., 297.
It was contended by the defendant’s counsel in the Court below, that the petition for the road was addressed to the “ Board of Supervisors of public roads,” in a particular township, and not to the Board of County Commissioners, and therefore the. proceedings to establish the road were void. This contention is unfounded. The mere address was not of the essence of the application. The allegations of the petition plainly implies that the petitioners demand a road— a public road — not a “cartway;” nothing is said of the latter in terms or by implication. The petition and counter petion were laid before the commissioners, and the allegations of them respectively showed that the commissioners had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of them, and the supervisors did not.
The defendant requested the Court to instruct the jury, that to “ constitute a public highway, it must be a public charge, and must, of necessity, have an overseer and hands to work it.” The Court declined to give this instruction, and this refusal is assigned as error.
The instruction, thus asked, was argumentative; it referred to what is generally an incident of a public highway, and is consequent upon its establishment — it was not perti*555nent to the issue before the jury, and the Court was not bound to give it.
The Court was further requested to instruct the jury, that, if they found, from the proceedings to establish the road, on the evidence, that the purpose was to establish a “ cartway,”’ then the commissioners had no jurisdiction, and the proceedings were void. The Court properly declined to give such instructions, because there was no evidence that warranted it. Nothing was said in the proceedings, or by any witness examined on the trial, so far as appears, in respect to a “ cartway.”
The motion in arrest of judgment was properly denied. The road, charged in the indictment to have been obstructed, is described substantially as that designated in the order of the commissioners, and the report of the jury in establishing it. From the indictment, the Court could see that a particular offence was charged, and the defendant could see with what offence he was charged, and make his defence, and he could make proper defence, in- case of a subsequent prosecution for the same offence. This- is sufficient.
There is no error.
Affirmed.