{ "id": 8652884, "name": "THE STATE v. J. M. HORNE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Horne", "decision_date": "1894-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "739", "last_page": "741", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "115 N.C. 739" } ], "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": "98 N. C., 712", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276128 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/98/0712-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 880", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652323 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0880-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653865 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0683-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 N. C., 712", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276128 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/98/0712-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 880", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652323 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0880-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 241, "char_count": 3610, "ocr_confidence": 0.582, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.158267005006846e-07, "percentile": 0.7694606905653573 }, "sha256": "9895173c1c6360806b6dce0450df5eefe058efe687b4a8d602c5a085c0fc3614", "simhash": "1:7105bb15a337dc79", "word_count": 612 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:52.252220+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE STATE v. J. M. HORNE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, J.:\nIn State v. Cainan, 94 N. C., 880, this Court held valid a town ordinance which forbade \u201cloud and boisterous cursing and swearing in any street, house or elsewhere in the city.\u201d This ruling was followed and affirmed in State v. Debnam, 98 N. C., 712. These decisions are placed upon the ground that such conduct does not amount to a \u201cnuisance \u201d (because not in the presence and to the annoyance of divers persons), which would be punishable under the State\u2019s jurisdiction, but is \u201c disorderly conduct,\u201d which the town might well forbid and punish. In State v. Warren, 113 N. C., 683, this Court held constitutional an act forbidding the use of \u201cprofane language that disturbed the peace\u201d in a certain locality. In the present case the ordinance simply forbids the \u201c use of profane language in the town.\u201d It does not forbid it when \u201c loud and boisterous,\u201d which would be disorderly conduct, as in the first two cases above\u2019cited, nor when it \u201cdisturbed the public peace,\u201d as in the last-named case. As the ordinance stands, it would make punishable profane language used, perhaps thoughtlessly, in the utmost privacy, when^neither loud and boisterous nor calculated to disturb the peace. Indeed, the special verdict finds that the language used was not loud and boisterous, nor obscene, nor calculated to disturb the peace. We do not think the powers granted this corporation, upon a fair construction, were intended to confer jurisdiction to that extraordinary extent, and -we must hold the ordinance invalid. We forbear to pass upon the question whether the Legislature could, if it chose, confer upon the town authority to pass such an ordinance, as the question is not before us. No Error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, J.:" } ], "attorneys": [ "The Attorney General, for the State.", "No counsel, contra." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE STATE v. J. M. HORNE.\nTown Ordinance, Validity of \u2014 Profane Language.\nA town ordinance prohibiting \u201cthe use of profane language in the town \u201d is invalid. It would be otherwise if it prohibited the use of such language as amounted to boisterous, or amounts to disorderly conduct, or a disturbance of the public peace. (State v. Cainan, 94 N. C., 880 ; State v. Debnam, 98 N. C., 712, and State v. Warren, 113 N. 0., 683, distinguished.)\n.Indictment for violation of an ordinance of the town of Wadesboro, heard on appeal from a judgment of the mayor \u2022of said town, before Brown, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1894, of ANSON Superior Court.\nThe jury, by consent, returned the following special verdict:\n\u201c That the defendant J. M. Horne went to a livery-stable in said town to order his horse. That as he was standing on the sidewalk, in front of same, he swore once or twice (witness 'did not give exact language used, but used terms \u201c cursed \u201d or \u201c swore \u201d). That there was no one disturbed or within hearing except witness, and an ordinary tone of voice was used. That such swearing was not boisterous. The .ordinance of the town is as follows, under head of \u2018Disorderly Conduct\u2019:\n\u2018\u201cSbctioIn 1. No person shall use obscene or profane language in the town. Any person violating shall pay a fine of five dollars.\u2019 \u201d\nNo obscene language was used. The defendant contended 'that as to \u201c profane language \u201d the ordinance was void. That the ordinance should have been directed against such language as tended to a breach of the peace or disorder. That under this ordinance a person might thoughtlessly use profane language in his private room, and it would come within the terms of this ordinance.\nThe Court being of opinion with the defendant, that the ordinance was too vague and indefinite, directed a verdict of not guilty, and the State appealed.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel, contra." }, "file_name": "0739-01", "first_page_order": 759, "last_page_order": 761 }