{ "id": 8653214, "name": "STATE v. MAULTSBY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Maultsby", "decision_date": "1905-10-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "583", "last_page": "585", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "139 N.C. 583" } ], "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": "116 N. C., 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654847 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/116/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N. C., 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273395 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/95/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 877", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652313 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0877-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 N. C., 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2088626 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/52/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 N. C., 689", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661637 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/126/0689-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 N. C., 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "126 N. C., 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N. C., 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654997 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/116/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N. C., 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N. C., 688", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698595 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/84/0688-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 281, "char_count": 4462, "ocr_confidence": 0.477, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.355435342626077e-07, "percentile": 0.8749697376179074 }, "sha256": "842abb1bdfbcc389a0ab96e9ea0b7bbe68507598ff2709142ebbf74b9489b7d3", "simhash": "1:ee9e3f08f05addc9", "word_count": 777 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:57:29.236172+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. MAULTSBY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clabk, C. J.\nUnder tbe provisions of tbe Constitution, article IX, sec. 5, tbe \u201cclear proceeds of all penalties and forfeitures of all fines\u201d are, with other sources of revenue named in said section, appropriated to tbe school fund. \u201cPenalties\u201d are recoverable by civil action and from time immemorial accrue to tbe State only when tbe act creating them so directs. Tbe above section is in tbe article on \u201cEducation,\u201d and was not intended as a restriction upon tbe immemorial legislative power to authorize qui tarn actions for penalties (and if so intended it would have been placed in article II of tbe Constitution on tbe \u201cLegislative Department\u201d), but is merely a provision that tbe net proceeds of such penalties as accrue to the State shall be devoted to tbe public schools. This has been fully discussed and settled. Katzenstein v. R. Co., 84 N. C., 688; Hodge v. R. Co., 108 N. C., 30-32; Sutton v. Phillips, 116 N. C., 502, and cases there cited and reaffirmed in Goodwin v. Fertilizer Co., 119 N. C., 122; Carter v. R. Co., 126 N. C., 445; Board of Education v. Henderson, Id., 695; School Directors v. Asheville, 137 N. C., 508.\nWhile it is true that it is competent for the Legislature to give penalties, which must .be sued for, either wholly or in part to whomsoever shall sue for the same, and only the clear proceeds of such as accrue to the State go to the school fund, it is otherwise as to \u201cfines.\u201d From their very nature, being punishment for violation of the criminal law, they are imposed in favor of the State and belonging to the State, the General Assembly cannot appropriate the clear.proceeds of fines to any other purpose than the school fund. By \u201cclear proceeds\u201d is meant the total sum less only the sheriff\u2019s fees for collection, when the fine and costs are not collected in full. This also has been fully discussed and settled. Board of Education v. Henderson, 126 N. C., 689; School Directors v. Asheville, 137 N. C., 508. The distinction is that section 5, article IX, is an appropriation of certain existing sources of revenue, and penalties accrue to the State only when so prescribed, but fines belong to the State in all cases. . Hence the Legislature in the act here in question (Laws 1903, chap. 125), under which the judge imposed a fine of $100 for selling whiskey contrary to its provisions, exceeded its powers in section 9 thereof, in providing that the informant \u201cshall receive one-half of the fine imposed.\u201d A penalty is always for a sum certain (Commissioners v. Harris, 52 N. C., 281; State v. Crenshaw, 94 N. C., 877), and is recoverable in a civil action by the party entitled. Middleton v. Railroad, 95 N. C., 167; Burrell v. Hughes, 116 N. C., 437. A fine is discretionary within the limits prescribed and is paid to the State.\nIn refusing the petition of the informant for one-half of said fine, there was\nNo Error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clabk, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.", "N. A. Sinclair and R. H. Bye for tbe informant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. MAULTSBY.\n(Filed October 17, 1905).\nPenalties \u2014 Fines\u2014Olear Proceeds \u2014 Division of Fine with Informant \u2014 Constitutional Law.\n1. The Legislature bas power to give \u201cpenalties,\u201d which, must be sued for, either wholly or in part to whomsoever shall sue for the same, and only the clear proceeds of such as accrue to the State go to the school fund under the provisions of Art. IX, sec. 5, of the Constitution.\n2. Pines, from their very nature, being punishment for violation of the criminal law, are imposed in favor of the State and belonging to the State, the Legislature cannot appropriate their clear proceeds to any other purpose than the school fund.\n3. By \u201cclear proceeds\u201d is meant the total sum less only the sheriff\u2019s fees for collection, when the fine and costs are not collected in full.\nThe provision in chapter 125, Laws 1903, that the informant \u201cshall receive one-half of the fine imposed\u201d is unconstitutional and there was no error in refusing the petition of the informant for one-lialf of a fine imposed for selling liquor contrary to its provisions. ' If*.\nThis is a petition in tbe action of State v. W. S. \u25a0Maultsby, by one John Evylin, for one-balf of a fine imposed upon tbe defendant Maultsby upon bis conviction for retailing spirituous liquors in violation of tbe Cumberland County prohibition law, beard by Judge G. S. Ferguson, at tbe March Term, 1905, of tbe Superior Court of CUMBERLAND County. Erom a refusal of tbe petition, tbe informant, Evylin, appealed.\nRobert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nN. A. Sinclair and R. H. Bye for tbe informant." }, "file_name": "0583-01", "first_page_order": 621, "last_page_order": 623 }