“Thе defendant brings forward only his exception to the adverse judgment as set forth аbove, which constitutes his one and only exception.” The appeаl, motions in this Court to quash the bill, and to arrest judgment, present the question whether error of law appears upon the face of the record. More particularly, the defendant argues the indictment fails to charge a criminal offense cognizable in the Superior Court of Guilford County.
When the defendant was arraigned in the Municipal-County Court, he demanded a jury trial. The amendatory Municiрal-County Court Act, Chapter 971, Session Laws of 1955, does not provide for jury trial. However, a demand for a jury trial transfers jurisdiction over the offense
charged in the warrant
to the Superior Court. Rule Six provides that the trial in the Superior Court shall be on the warrant. Hоwever, our decisions are to the effect that in the absence of a trial in the court below, and on appeal to the Superior Court from judgment, the demand for a jury trial places jurisdiction of the offense charged in thе warrant in the Superior Court where trial must be upon indictment.
State v. Thomas,
The defendant argues the bill of indictment is bad for that it fails to give (1) the street or highway where the collision occurred; (2) the description of the property damaged in the collision, and (3) the name of the owner. Failure to designate the street or highway on which the collision occurred is not fatal. The statute does not restrict thе offense
*577
to a public highway. “It has been held that where so-called 'hit and run’ stаtutes are silent with respect to the place where the alleged оffense must occur ... it is not necessary to allege and prove that the offense was committed on a public highway, but that the statute applies to accidents occurring ... off a public highway.”
“The growing practice of banks, supermarkets, and amusement centers and other organizations, maintaining large parking facilities for public convenience ... is an added reason why thе statute should not be restricted in scope in the absence of cleаr legislative intent to do so.”
State v. Gallagher,
The purpose of the requirement that a motorist stop and identify himself is to facilitate investigation. Failure to stop is the gist of the offense. Absence of fault on the part of the driver is not a defense tо the charge of failure to stop.
The defendant contends the indictment is invalid for failure to identify either by description or by ownership the property damaged in the accident, and hence the plea of guilty in this case will not рrotect him against another prosecution for the same offense. In this рarticular instance the indictment is not defective for the reason assignеd. The offense charged is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal-County Court, Ch. 971, § 3(b)(1), Session Laws of 1955. The demand for a jury trial before plea compelled the transfer of the case to the Superior Court and necessitatеd a bill of indictment. State v. Hollingsworth, supra; State v. Thomas, supra. However, the indictment and trial in the Superior Court were cоnfined to the charge embraced in the warrant. Jurisdiction over all other misdemeanors not embraced in the warrant remained in the Municipal-County Court.
It follows from what has been said that the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to indict and try thе defendant was limited to the charge in the warrant which thereby constitutes the warrant an essential part of the record proper. The warrant identifies the injured property as two automobiles belonging to B. E. Headen and Worth Dillоn, and the damage as having been caused at Ashe and Sycamore Streets in Greensboro. The record proper will protect the defendant frоm another prosecution for the same offense. Error of law does not appear upon the face of the record. The judgment of the Superior Court of Guilford County is
Affirmed.