#### STATE v. WILLIAM E. WORTH.

Penalty — Ordinances of Cities and Towns.

An ordinance of a city or town prescribing a penalty to be fixed in the discretion of the Court, is uncertain and void.

(State v. Crenshaw, 94 N. C., 877; and State v. Cainan, Ibid., 888, cited and approved).

This was a orimiNal actiox, tried in the Criminal Court of’New ITaxover county, before Meares, Judge, at May Term, 1886.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

The Attorney-General, (Mr. DuBrutz Chilar also filed a brief), for the State.

Mr. J. D. Bellamy, for the defendant.

MionimioN, J.

The defendant was charged criminally before the Mayor of the city of Wilmington with having violated an ordinance of that city, whereof the following is a copy:

> “Sec. 24. That any person refusing or neglecting to pay the license tax assessed against him for the privilege of doing *616business, for the space of ten clays, shall be subject to criminal prosecution, and u,pon conviction, shall be fined not more than twenty-fine dollars, or imprisoned not exceeding thirty days.”

The mayor found the defendant guilty, and gave judgment against him, from which lie appealed to the Criminal Court. In the latter court there was a verdict of guilty, and judgment against him. Having excepted, he appealed to this Court.

The city ordinance, for a violation of which the defendant was convicted, prescribes, that upon conviction, a party “ shall bo fined not more than twenty-five dollar’s, or imprisoned not exceeding thirty days.” The punishment thus authorized is in the discretion of the mayor, and uncertain. It may be any sum not exceeding twenty-five dollars. It is settled that ordinances thus uncertain are inoperative and void in this Btate. Like ordinances have been repeatedly and uniformly held to bo void. State v. Crenshaw, 94 N. C., 877 ; State v. Cainan, Ibid 883.

There was therefore, error.

Error. Reversed.