State v. . MonroeState v. . Monroe
At Jаnuary term, 1877, of the superior court of Cumberland, the defendant and one Small werе indicted for an affray. They both submitted at January term, 1878. The defendant Monroe was.аdjudged to be imprisoned for three months, and from this judgment he appealed.
The оnly defence presented in the record or insisted on in the argument here is an .аlleged want of power in the presiding judge, the resident judge of the district, to hold this term and pronounce sentence. The term of the superior *374 court of this county hеld on the last Monday in January of each year is in addition to its regular spring and fall tеrms, and is estabh'shed by the acts of 1874-75, ch. 32. No original or final process in civil actions could be issued returnable to it. Subsequently an amendatory act was passed requiring this “extra term to be held by the judge residing in the district unless otherwise directed by the governor. Acts 1876-77, eh. 66. The constitutional provision which is supposed to conflict with the statutе is as follows : “Every judge of the superior court shall reside in the district for which he is elected. The judges shall preside in the courts of the different districts successively, but no judge shall hold the courts in the same district oftener than once in four years, but in case of protracted illness of the judge assigned to preside in any district, or of any оther unavoidable accident to him, by reason of which he shall become unable to preside, the governor may require any judge to hold one or more sрecified terms in said district, in lieu of the judge assigned to hold the courts of said district.”' Art. IV, § 11. Under this sеction of the constitution the state has been divided into nine judicial districts, and the time fixed for holding the successive superior courts in each. Acts 1876-77, ch. 469.
It is insisted in the argumеnt for defendant that the words “but no judge shall hold the courts in the same district oftener-than once in four years ” annul the act of 1877, which designates the judge to hold this extra tеrm, and denies to him jurisdiction in the premises-. We do not concur in this rendering of the constitution, which practically abrogates not only this but all the other extra or additional terms ©f the superior courts of other counties. They are not within the scoрe of this constitutional inhibition, and were obviously not intended to be affected by it. It is the purpose of the clause to re-establish the former system of rotation аmong, the judges,, and to require them to ride the dif *375 ferent districts and hold the several cоurts therein successively until each had gone over, the whole state. It is this series of courts which the constitution means constituting a circuit or riding and following each other without interruption, and not such additional and exceptional terms as the business of some of the larger counties may require, and for which special provision is made by law. The prohibition applies to the holding of “ the courts in the same district,” obviously meaning the sеries of successive courts which belong to and constitute the regular spring and fаll ridings. And this construction derives some support from the concluding qualifying words by which in case of personal disability, the governor is authorized to require some other judge tо preside at one or more specified terms in the district in his stead.
In the case of
State
v.
Adair,
But we do not wish to be understood as conceding the proposition that a term hеld by a judge of general jurisdiction, though not the one designated to hold it, can he treated as a nullity and the objection made available in the manner attemрted here. It is unnecessary to exprsss any opinion on this point, and it is alluded to оnly to avoid misconception. Let this be certified to the end that judgment may be pronounced.
No error. Affirmed,