{
  "id": 8661392,
  "name": "STATE v. ROBERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Roberson",
  "decision_date": "1904-10-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "591",
  "last_page": "592",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "136 N.C. 591"
    }
  ],
  "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": "118 Ala., 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        5605462
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/118/0362-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N. C., 587",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/136/0587-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 2592,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.232378735636765e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5105145126221644
    },
    "sha256": "3d1ca3a3045f0960a37c9cb6d9bb7f51f495ec2666b06693ef574b9a6deaa8a7",
    "simhash": "1:de82fd5720aa8dd3",
    "word_count": 445
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:53:15.809157+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ROBERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CoNNOR, J.\nThe defendant was in this case indicted for violating section 74, chap. 274, Acts 1903, in the same manner and form as in State v. Roberson, 136 N. C., 587, at this term, except that, here, the time is laid in March, 1904. He pleaded former conviction. The jury rendered the same special verdict, except in respect to the time. The Court held against the defendant upon his special plea and adjudged him guilty, and he appealed from the judgment rendered.z\nThe only exception which we deem necessary to notice is that directed to the ruling of the Court below upon the special plea. We think it should have been sustained. The charge is that he engaged in procuring, etc., and this we have held is a sufficient charge of engaging in the business of procuring, etc. As we have said, it is not the single act of procuring laborers, but engaging in the business without a license, which is made a misdemeanor; hence, it would seem to' follow that each separate act is not indictable, and that as the tax is annual, one conviction would bar any further prosecution during the current year. This view is sustained by the fact that the minimum punishment is fixed at a fine equal to the tax. This opinion has been adopted by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Railroad v. Attahala, 118 Ala., 362, and the reasons given for the conclusion are entirely satisfactory to us. Coleman, J., says: \u201cStatutes which prohibit the engaging in or carrying on business without license must not be confounded with those which declare single acts, such as the selling of vinous, spirituous or malt liquors without license, to.^be misdemeanors.\u201d In declining to sustain the special plea of former conviction there was\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CoNNOR, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert 1). Gilmer, Attorney-General, F. S. Spruill and IK. H. Ruffin, for the State.",
      "T. B. Womack, Day & Bell and Murray Allen, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ROBERSON.\n(Filed October 11, 1904).\n1. LICENSES \u2014 Indictment\u2014Emigrant Agent \u2014 Acts 190S,ch.SJ\u00a1\"t, sec. 74-\nWhere a statute makes it a criminal offense to \u201cengage in the business of procuring laborers,\u201d etc., it is sufficient to charge in the indictment that a person \u201cengaged in procuring laborers,\u201d etc.\n2. LICENSES \u2014 Former Gonvietion.\nWhere a statute levies an annual license tax and makes it indictable not to pay the same, a conviction thereunder is a bar to a further prosecution during the current year.\nINDictment against I. W. Eoberson, heard by Judg$ Frederick Moore and a jury, at April Term, 1904, of the Superior Court of Franklin County. From a judgment of guilty upon a special verdict, the defendant appealed.\nRobert 1). Gilmer, Attorney-General, F. S. Spruill and IK. H. Ruffin, for the State.\nT. B. Womack, Day & Bell and Murray Allen, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0591-01",
  "first_page_order": 631,
  "last_page_order": 632
}