{ "id": 8630057, "name": "STATE v. JAY L. INGLE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ingle", "decision_date": "1938-10-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "276", "last_page": "277", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "214 N.C. 276" } ], "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": "174 S. E., 453", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N. C., 913", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8633558 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0913-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S. E., 32", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N. C., 864", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651850 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/109/0864-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S. E., 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N. C., 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624514 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S. E., 149", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 587", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622421 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0587-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Wheat., 76", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wheat.", "case_ids": [ 1442088 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/18/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S. E., 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N. C., 300", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607840 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0300-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 310, "char_count": 5055, "ocr_confidence": 0.497, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1668944330306856e-07, "percentile": 0.7705688632812183 }, "sha256": "1f1b1a67bb59be96a2e663243fe8293f080b4c32eb83c6c2856fe2e44198cf0e", "simhash": "1:717bdc79fa9c1927", "word_count": 866 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. JAY L. INGLE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIt is provided by cb. 52, Public Laws 1931, sec. 6, that in. cities of more than thirty-five hundred inhabitants, persons, firms or corporations desiring to enter into or carry on \u201cthe Plumbing and/or Heating Contracting business,\u201d shall first apply to the State Board of Examiners of Plumbing and Heating Contractors for examination and license, at least thirty days prior to \u201cengaging in said business.\u201d\nIn section 8, it is provided that the board shall have power to revoke the license of any \u201cPlumbing and/or Heating Contractor,\u201d who, after hearing, is found to be guilty of any fraud or deceit in obtaining license, or gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the carrying on of the business of \u201cPlumbing or Heating Contracting.\u201d\nAnd in section 10 of the act it is provided that \u201cAny person . . . who has not been licensed to carry on the business of Plumbing and Heating Contracting in this State, according to the provisions of this act, or who shall practice or offer to practice or carry on said business . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,\u201d etc.\nIt is the position of the defendant, and his view prevailed in the court below, that section 10 of the act in question, imposing criminal liability, applies only to those who have not been licensed to carry on the business of \u201cPlumbing and Heating Contracting\u201d in this State, and who practice, or offer to practice, or carry on \u201csaid business\u201d; and that a journeyman plumber does not come within the terms of this section. It must be conceded that the language of the act supports the defendant\u2019s position. A journeyman plumber, as defined on the instant record, is not one who is engaged in the business of \u201cplumbing and. heating contracting.\u201d At any rate, it could hardly be said the defendant here is practicing, or offering to practice, or carrying on \u201csaid business.\u201d\nIn construing the penal section of a statute, the rule is, that everything not fairly within the scope of the language used is to he excluded from its operation. S. v. Whitehurst, 212 N. C., 300, 193 S. E., 657; U. S. v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat., 76; 25 R. C. L., 1076.\nWhether the defendant comes under sections 6 and 8 of the act is not before us for decision. Roach v. Durham, 204 N. C., 587, 169 S. E., 149.\nWhile there was no motion to quash the warrant, it may not be amiss to observe that it charges the defendant with \u201ccarrying on the Plumbing and/or Heating contracting business.\u201d S. v. Williams, 210 N. C., 159, 185 S. E., 661; S. v. Van Doran, 109 N. C., 864, 14 S. E., 32. The use of \u201cand/or\u201d in the warrant adds nothing to its clarity. Freeman v. Charlotte, 206 N. C., 913, 174 S. E., 453; 3 C. J. S., 1069.\nThe correct conclusion has been reached on the record as presented.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan for the State, appellant.", "Broohs, McLendon & Holderness, amicus curiae.", "Adams \u25a0& Adams for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JAY L. INGLE.\n(Filed 12 October, 1938.)\n1. Plumbing and Heating Contractors \u00a7 2 \u2014 Journeyman plumber held not to carry on business of plumbing and heating contractor within penal provisions of statute.\nA journeyman plumber, contracting and agreeing with various persons to perform labor required to install certain plumbing at a stipulated lump sum price, and who does not maintain a fixed place of business or sell or contract to furnish materials, supplies or fixtures of any kind, and who fails to obtain a license from the State Board of Examiners of Plumbing and Heating Contractors, is not guilty of a misdemeanor under the provisions of sec. 10, ch. 52, Public Laws of 1931, since his occupation does not constitute carrying on the \u201cbusiness of plumbing and heating contracting\u201d within the meaning of the penal provisions of the statute.\n3. Statutes \u00a7 8\u2014\nPenal provisions of a statute must be strictly construed.\n3. Indictment \u00a7 9\u2014\nThe use of \u201cand/or\u201d in a warrant disapproved.\nAppeal by State from Alley, J., at June Term, 1938, of BUNCOMBE.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon warrant charging the defendant with \u201ccarrying on the Plumbing and/or Heating contracting business, without having obtained a license to carry on the business of Plumbing and Heating contracting in this State.\u201d\nThere was a special verdict in which it was found that the defendant was duly licensed as a journeyman plumber in the city of Asheville; that at sundry times he contracted and agreed with various persons to perform labor required to install certain plumbing at a stipulated lump sum price for his labor, but at no time has the defendant entered into any contract or agreement which involved or contemplated the furnishing by him of any materials, supplies or fixtures of any kind; that he maintains no office, shop, or fixed place of business; nor does he own, sell or offer for sale any plumbing or heating supplies or fixtures, and that the defendant has never been licensed by the State Board of Examiners of Plumbing and Heating Contractors.\nUpon this special verdict, the defendant was declared \u201cnot guilty,\u201d from which ruling the State appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney-General McMullan for the State, appellant.\nBroohs, McLendon & Holderness, amicus curiae.\nAdams \u25a0& Adams for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0276-01", "first_page_order": 344, "last_page_order": 345 }