{ "id": 8650372, "name": "STATE v. JAMES STOVALL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stovall", "decision_date": "1889-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "416", "last_page": "419", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "103 N.C. 416" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "60 N. Y., 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 523165 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/60/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N. C., 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8695177 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/81/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N. C., 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682961, 8682969 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/89/0171-01", "/nc/89/0171-02" ] }, { "cite": "4 D. & B., 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "D. & B.,", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Jones, 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Jones", "case_ids": [ 8681135 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/46/0049-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 410, "char_count": 6493, "ocr_confidence": 0.522, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.7230353424713613e-07, "percentile": 0.8303528506874339 }, "sha256": "7692a459b3a87160447d9c3314b1765d42ffda5154baf4378449187b79617eb6", "simhash": "1:4e2b1a14cdf51956", "word_count": 1073 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:40:09.785450+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. JAMES STOVALL." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Davis, J.\n(after stating the case). The defendant insists that the statute under which he is indicted is unconstitutional; that by the amendment in ch. 33, Private Acts of 1887, the Roanoke and Tar River Agricultural Society lost its original character and became a joint stock company, and the effect of the prohibitory section is to confer upon the association privileges denied to individuals, and is therefore in violation of Art. I, sec. 7, of the Constitution, which declares that \u201c no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services,\u201d and also of section 31 of the same article, which declares that \u201c perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free State, and ought not to be allowed.\u201d\nWe are unable to see that any privilege or right is conferred upon \u201c any man or set of men\u201d which is denied to others, nor are we able to perceive that any \u201c perpetuities or monopoly \u201d is created by the act. Neither the corporation nor the corporators, nor any one else, can lawfully do, \u201c within one-half mile of the grounds of th\u00e9 Roanoke and Tar River Agricultural Association,\u201d what the defendant is charged wi th having done. Whether the society can grant privileges \u201c within \u201d its grounds, under such regulations as it may prescribe, is not presented for our consideration, but we can see nothing in the prohibitory section to prevent it.\nThe power of the Legislature to enact laws conferring police powers and regulating traffic, &c., within particular localities, seems to be well settled. Intendent and Comm\u2019rs of Raleigh v. Sorrell, 1 Jones, 49; State v. Muse, 4 D. & B., 319; Muller v. Commissioners, 89 N. C., 171; State v. Joyner, 81 N. C., 534. Sections 1079, 3670 and 3671 of The Code impose restrictions and regulations, the constitutionality of which have never been questioned. No vested rights are interfered with by such regulations. Cooley\u2019s Const. Lim, 746 to 750, 594 to 598; Phelps v. Raney, 60 N. Y., 10.\nOrganizations such as the Roanoke and Tar River Agricultural Society are justly considered of public benefit, and large numbers of people congregate at their fairs, and from the very nature of such assemblies, regulations for the preservation of order are necessary, and the Legislature has the powei\u2019vto enact such laws and provide for such regulations as will preserve the good order and promote the interest and comfort of those who assemble for purposes of pleasure\u2019 or for the advancement of agricultural interests. The statute deprives no one of any vested right \u2014 interferes with no one\u2019s '\u201cregular business.\u201d\nNo error. Affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Davis, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Attorney General, for the State.", "Messrs. T. N. Hill and J. M. Mullen, and W. E. Daniel (by-brief), for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES STOVALL.\nAgricultural Societies \u2014 Police Regulations\u25a0 \u2014 \u2022Constitutional Law.\n1. The provisions of cb. 33, Acts of 1887, amending the charter of the Roanoke and Tar River Agricultural Society, incorporated under chapter 88, Private Laws of 1870-71, which forbids any person, not doing a regular business within half a mile of the grounds of the society, irom selling, &c., any liquors, tobacco, or other refreshments, &c., within that distance from said grounds, and making it a misdemeanor so to do, is constitutional \u2014 not violating section 7, Article I, as to exclusive emoluments or privileges, nor section 31, as to perpetuities and monopolies.\n2. The power of the Legislature to enact laws conferring police powers, regulating traffic, &c., in certain localities, &c., is established, and such power is properly exercised for the encouragement of agricultural societies, and providing regulations for preserving order and promoting the comfort, See., of those assembled at their fairs.\nIndictment for selling liquors, tobacco, &c , within one-half mile of the fair grounds of the Roanoke and Tar River Agricultural Society, contrary to law, tried before Graves,,J.y at Spring Term, 1888, of the Superior Court of Halifax County.\nThe jury rendered the foil uving special verdict: \u201c The Roanoke and Tar River Agricultural Society is a corporation, having been incorporated under the laws of North Carolina, chapter 88, Private Laws 1870-71, which said act of incorporation was amended by the act hereunto annexed and by chapter 33, Private Laws of 1887. All of said acts are made a part of this case.\n\u201c That during the annual fairs held by the said Society since the beginning and during the fair held on its grounds during the year 1887, privileges were leased to many parties to sell liquors, tobacco and refreshments, and goods, wares and merchandise, and the same were sold during its continuance within its said grounds.\n\u201cThat the defendant, James Stovall, leased a stand upon the lands of one R. W. Daniel, within one-half mile of the grounds of said association, and was engaged in selling food and refreshments during the holding of said annual fair of 1887, until he was arrested at the instance of said association. Said defendant was not doing regular business within the prohibited territory. .\n\u201c The above facts are found by the jury as a special verdict, and if his Honor is of opinion that the defendant is guilty, then the jury find him guilty.\u201d\nBy chapter 88, Private Laws 1870-71, the Roanoke and T\u00e1r River Agricultural Society was duly incorporated.\nThis act of incorporation was amended'by chapter 83, Acts-of 1887, limiting the capital stock of the company to $5,000, to be divided in such number of shares as the incorporators might determine, and by chapter 89, Acts of 1887, by adding the following section:\n\u201c That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, individual or -corporate, to sell or offer for sale any. liquors, tobacco or other refreshments of any kind whatsoever, or any goods, wares or merchandise of any kind, within one-half mile of the grounds of said association, during the week of their annual fair. Any one violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not to exceed two hundred dollars. This act shall, not apply to persons doing regular business within the prohibited territory.\u201d\nCopies of the several acts referred to are annexed and made a part of the verdict, but it is not necessary here to set them out more fully than above.\n\u201c Upon said verdict the Court adjudged the said James Stovall to be guilty,\u201d and there was a judgment, and defendant appealed.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nMessrs. T. N. Hill and J. M. Mullen, and W. E. Daniel (by-brief), for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0416-01", "first_page_order": 440, "last_page_order": 443 }