The question posed by this appeal is whether it was error not to allow the petitioner to appeal as a pauper from the magistrate to the district court. G.S. 1-110 provides for a person to bring an action in the district court as a pauper but does not provide for an appeal from a magistrate as a pauper. G.S. 1-288 provides for an appeal as a pauper from the district and superior courts but does not provide for an appeal from a magistrate to the district court.
If a defendant against whom a magistrate has rendered a judgment may appeal as a pauper it is within the discretion of the judge as to whether it shall be allowed. See In re McCarroll, 313 N.C. 315, 327 S.E. 2d 880 (1985). We cannot hold the court abused its discretion by not allowing the petitioner to appeal as a pauper when her affidavit showed she owned a home worth $27,150.00.
We do not believe our decision in this case violates the constitutional requirements enunciated in Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed. 2d 113 (1971) upon which the petitioner relies. That case holds it is a violation of due process to deprive a person of the right to file a divorce action if the person cannot pay the court costs. In this case there is evidence that the petitioner had the means to pay for the costs of the appeal. Adkins v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948) deals with the interpretation of a federal statute in regard to appeals. It is not applicable to this case. The petitioner also relies on cases from other jurisdictions which are not binding upon us.
Affirmed.
Judge WHICHARD concurs in the result. Judge JOHNSON dissents.