Burke County NcArchives Court.....Findley, Vs. Erwin 1811-18 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 12, 2008, 11:26 pm Source: North Carolina Reports Written: 1811-18 January Term 1813. JOHN FINDLEY, County Treasurer, etc., v. WILLIAM W. ERWIN, Clerk, etc. From Burke. The removal of a prosecution from one county to another for trial does not affect the right of the county in which the prosecution originated to the fine imposed upon the defendant in case of conviction. For fines were given to the county to defray the expenses of prosecution in cases of acquittal; and it necessarily follows that the county which on an acquittal would have to pay the costs shall on a conviction have the fine. A prosecution for a conspiracy was commenced in the Superior Court of Wilkes, and removed for trial to the county of Burke, where the defendants were convicted and fined £100, which sum was paid into the office of the Superior Court of Law for Burke. This action was brought by the county trustee of Wilkes to recover the money for the use of that county. Henderson, J. As the law is silent in the case of a prosecution removed from one county to another, in respect to the county entitled to the fine which may be imposed, we must have recourse to reason and construction, in order to decide the question. No doubt the fines were given to the county to defray the expenses of those prosecutions to which it was made liable in certain cases of acquittal. If that be correct, it follows that the county which would have been chargeable, in case of an acquittal, is entitled to the fine on conviction; and that is the county in which the offense was committed and in which the prosecution was commenced. Policy as well as justice seems to dictate this: policy, because it will make it the interest of a county to suppress offenses; justice, because those who originate a groundless prosecution ought to bear the costs. The removal of the case to another county for trial cannot destroy that liability. We are, therefore, of opinion that as the county of Wilkes, where the prosecution was commenced, would have been subject to the payment of the costs of prosecution if the defendants had been acquitted, it should have the fine imposed on their conviction. Additional Comments: North Caroline Reports, Vol. 6, Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Reported by A.D. Murphey, Annotated by Walter Clark. 1811 to 1813, Inclusive and at July Term, 1818. Reprinted by the State. E.M. Uzzell and Company, State printers and binders, 1910. File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/burke/court/findley554gwl.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/ File size: 3.0 Kb