after stating the case: An appeal does not lie in this case, the judgment of the Superior Court being interlocutory and requiring the defendant to answer over to the indictment (respondeat ouster). It has been so held from the earliest period. S. v. Robinson, 8 N. C., 188; S. v. McDowell, 84 N. C., 799; S. v. Pollard, 83 N. C., 597; S. v. Bailey, 65 N. C., 426; S. v. Webb, 155 N. C., 426. But we will consider the question' raised by the exception as if it were properly before us, but merely for the purpose of deciding it as being important to the due administration of the law in the courts of the county and as we were specially requested by counsel to do so.
*752We are of tbe opinion tbat tbe ruling of Judge Stacy was correct. By tbe Public-Local Laws of 1913, cb. 697, tbe jurisdiction to bear and determine criminal causes is given to tbe county court, subject to tbe provision of section 3 for a transfer of any case to tbe Superior Court wben tbe presiding judge deems it proper tbat tbe particular case should be tried in tbe latter court. Tbe clauses with reference to tbe “final original” and tbe “original, exclusive, and final” jurisdiction of tbe court as used in section 4 of tbe statute are to be read in connection with tbe latter part of section 3 in regard to tbe transfer of cases from one court to tbe other. In other words, tbe Legislature simply created tbe county court and conferred jurisdiction upon it of certain criminal offenses, and this jurisdiction was made “original, exclusive, and final,” unless tbe county court, in its sound discretion, should deem it expedient tbat any particular case should be sent to. tbe Superior Court for trial. This was intended to be, and is, a qualification of tbe broad jurisdiction given by tbe words of tbe statute above quoted. Under tbe statute permitting tbe removal of a case pending in the Superior Court of one county to tbat of another county, tbe county in which tbe suit was first brought may well be said to have original, exclusive, and final jurisdiction of any case removed by it; but this only means if it retains tbe case for trial to its end, and if it is removed its exclusive and final jurisdiction passes to tbe other court. This power of transfer was given in order to promote the more convenient and expeditious trial of criminal cases in tbe courts of tbe county of Wayne. If this cause bad originated in tbe Superior Court and tbat court bad, on proper objection to its jurisdiction, proceeded to try tbe case to final judgment against tbe defendant, a serious question might be presented which is not now before us, and tbe decision of which we need not anticipate. Nor is it necessary for us to say whether tbe county court bad exclusive jurisdiction of this offense, for if it bad jurisdction at all, tbe power to transfer tbe cause to the Superior Court was vested in tbat court, and tbe Superior Court acquired jurisdiction by virtue of tbe transfer.
It is obvious from what we have said tbat S. v. Collins, 151 N. C., 648, has no application to this case. There was no such clause respecting transfers in tbe statute construed in tbat decision. Tbe rules for ascertaining tbe meaning of tbe Legislature are well settled. “Tbe object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain tbe meaning and intention of tbe Legislature, to tbe end tbat tbe same may be enforced. This meaning and intention must be sought, first of all, in tbe language of tbe statute itself, for it must be presumed that tbe means employed by tbe Legislature to express its will are adequate for tbe purpose, and do express tbat will correctly.” S. v. Barco, 150 *753N. C., 796. “There can be no clonbt about the intention of the Legislature, and it is the duty of the Court to so construe the act as to effectuate that intention. And in construing it, every part should be viewed in connection with the whole, so as to make its parts harmonize, if practicable, and give a sensible, intelligent effect to each. It is not to be presumed that the Legislature intended any part of a statute to be without meaning.” Tabor v. Ward, 83 N. C., 293.
We must examine the statute as a whole. It cannot be supposed, when we do so, that the Legislature intended by the last words of section 4 to repeal the provision, so carefully framed and made an essential part of the legislation by section 3, especially when the two provisions can be so easily reconciled, and we are required to harmonize them if it can be done.
There was no error in the judgment of the court, but for the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.