State v. . HicksState v. . Hicks
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Davis
(after stating the case.) We have not been-favored with an argument for the defendant, and no error is assigned in the record, but it is suggested that the exception •may be to so much of the judgment as imposes imprisonment “at hard labor on the publiс roads for a term of sixty days.”
By section 1117 of The Code, under which the defendаnt was indicted and convicted, it is declared thаt, “if any person shall sell spirituous or malt or other intoxicating liquors on Sunday * * * * * the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by fine or imprison.-ment, or both, in the discretion of the Court.”
By сhapter 355 of the Acts ‘of 1887, it is, among other things, enacted : “ That when any county has made provisiоn for the working of convicts up >n the public road, or when any number of counties have jointly made provision for working convicts upon the publiс roads, it shall be lawful and the duty of the -Judge holding Court in said counties to sentence to imprisonment аt hard labor on the public road, for such terms аs are now prescribed by law for their imprisonmеnt in the county jail or in the State prison, the following class of convicts: First, all persons conviсted of offences the punishment whereof would otherwise be wholly ■ or in part imprisonment in the common jail,” &c.
The act further gives to the county аuthorities power to make all needful rules and regulations for the successful working of conviсts upon the public roads.
Under section 1117 of The Code, the punishment of the prisoner would be in part imprisonment in the common jail (State v. Norwood, 93 N. C., 578), and therefore, if the county -of Durham has made provision for “ working convicts upon *749 the public roads,” the Court had the right to impose the-sentence set out in-the record
If it be said the record must show that the county of Dur-had taken advаntage of the Act of 1887, ch. 355, and that-this does not appear in the record, the answer is, the statute-makes il the “ duty of the Judge holding Court‘in any county where provision is made for working convicts upon the public road, to sentence the class of convicts named “ to imprisonment at hard lаbor on the public road.” He holds Court-in the cоunty and must get information from the county record or the county authorities, upon which he acts, in-imрosing the sentence, and while, perhaps, it wоuld be well that the judgment should state that the county had made-provision for working convicts on the public road, we must assume, in the absence of any suggestion or intimation to-the contrary, that it was imposed in accordance with his duty and the authority conferred by chapter 355, Acts of” 1887. Affirmed.