State v. Hayworth, 220 N.C. 534 (1941)

Dec. 10, 1941 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

220 N.C. 534

STATE v. CLAUDE HAYWORTH, ARCHIE FOWLER, and HARFORD SMITH.

(Filed 10 December, 1941.)

Courts § 2a—

Where, at the time of issuance of reeordari and supersedeas, defendants had already perfected their appeals from the judgment of the municipal court, the revocation of the writs by the judge of the Superior Court on the ground that they had been improvidently granted and that no harm could come to defendants from their revocation, is without error.

Appeal by defendants from Johnston, Special Judge, at September Term, 1941, of Guileord.

Criminal prosecutions tried in tbe municipal court of tbe city of Higb Point on warrants charging tbe defendants witb conspiracy to violate tbe prohibition laws and witb violations of tbe prohibition laws. For convenience tbe cases were consolidated and tried together. From verdicts of guilty and judgments thereon, tbe defendants appealed to tbe Superior Court of Guilford County. They also applied for writs of reeordari and supersedeas, which were granted, and later stricken out.

From tbe order revoking tbe writs of reeordari and supersedeas, tbe defendants appeal, assigning errors.

Attorney-General McMuTlan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.

G. B. Mclver, Jr., for defendants.

Per Curiam.

It appears that at tbe time tbe writs of reeordari and supersedeas were issued “to tbe end that tbe said action may be sent on for trial in tbe Superior Court of said County,” tbe defendants bad already perfected their appeals from tbe judgments rendered against them in tbe municipal court, and tbe said causes were then pending in tbe Superior Court of Guilford County for trial de novo. Hence, tbe judge concluded that tbe writs of reeordari and supersedeas bad been improvidently granted, and that no barm could come to tbe defendants from their revocation. Tbe. conclusion is supported by tbe record.

Affirmed.