State v. Whitaker Et At, 78.
Decision Date | 19 December 1947 |
Docket Number | NO. 78.,78. |
Citation | 45 S.E.2d 860 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE. v. WHITAKER et at. |
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Zeb V. Nettles, Judge.
George Whitaker and others were convicted of violating sections 2, 3, and 5 of chapter 328 of the Session Laws of 1947, and they appeal, assigning errors.
No error.
This is a criminal action in which the defendants were charged with a violation of Sections 2, 3, and 5 of Chapter 328 of the Session Laws of 1947. For convenience of reference the statute is reproduced here in full.
Chapter 75 of the General Statutes makes combinations, conspiracies and contracts in restraint of trade illegal and punishable as misdemeanors.
The defendant, George Whitaker, was a building contractor of the City of Asheville. The defendant, A. M. DeBruhl, was an officer and agent of the Asheville Building and Construction Trades Council of that City. The other defendants were officers and agents of local trade unions or organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as was set out in the warrant. The defendants were convicted in the Police Court of the City of Asheville, in which the case had been duly instituted and tried, and from the judgment and sentence in this case defendants gave notice of appeal to the Superior Court, where the case was tried de novo. When the case was called for trial in the Superior Court, the Solicitor announced that he would try the defendants on the original warrant issued in the Police Court.
The warrant charged the defendants, George Whitaker, an employer, and A. M. DeBruhl, an officer and agent of the Asheville Building and Construction Trades Council, T. G. Embler and the other defendants as officers and agents of local trade unions and organizations
In the Superior Court the defendants made a motion to quash the warrant on the alleged grounds that the warrant did not charge a criminal offense and that Chapter 328 of the Session Laws of 1947 was enacted in violation of Article I, Section 17, of the Constitution of North Carolina and in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution; and it was further alleged that the Act was in violation of freedom of speech in assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution and protection from State invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The defendants also alleged the Act was in conflict with the Labor Management Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq, and Article VI, Clause 2, of the Federal Constitution, but this argument was not pressed on appeal to this Court.
The motion to quash was overruled, to which the defendants excepted.
All of the defendants were convicted by the jury on the offenses charged in thewarrant. The defendants thereupon made a motion for an arrest of judgment, assigning as grounds therefor the same reasons set out in the motion to quash.
This motion was overruled and sentence was imposed by the Court that each of the defendants pay a fine of $50 and also pay one-seventh of the costs. From this judgment and sentence the defendants appealed to this Court.
The charge of the Court to the jury was not sent up with the record and it is, therefore, to be taken that the Judge fully complied with the statute, G.S. § 1-180, and stated in a plain and correct manner the evidence given in the case and declared and explained the law arising thereon.
In the brief of the defendants filed in this case, it is conceded that if the statutes alleged to have been violated are valid, the warrant properly charges the offenses alleged, and that there was adequate evidence of the violation of the statute. The defendants in their brief abandoned their assignments of error Nos. 1, 2 and 3, except as to their contention that a violation of Section 3 of the 1947 Act did not constitute a criminal offense.
From the State's evidence it appeared that the defendant, George Whitaker, was a local building contractor engaged in local construction work and had been such for many years. The defendant, A. M. De-Bruhl, was an officer and agent of the Asheville Building and Construction Trades Council. The defendant, T. G. Embler, was an officer and agent of the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Local Union No. 238; H. E. Setzer, an officer and agent of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 384; J. E. Rogers, an officer and agent of the Brotherhood of Painters, Paper Hangers, and Decorators of America, Local Union No. 839; Fred Black, an officer and agent of the Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of America, Local Union No. 1; and R. B. Robertson, an officer and agent of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Asheville Local Union No. 487.
These labor unions or organizations are all affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, with a total membership of approximately 1, 260.
These defendants, by their own admission, had entered into a written contract dated the 25th of May, 1947, which was offered in evidence. This contract provided that the employer agreed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Messner v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists, Intern. Union of America, Local 256
...etc. v. Bonito (1955), 71 Nev. 84 (280 P.2d 295, 297(3)). North Carolina: N.C.Session Laws, 1947, ch. 328, upheld in State v. Whitaker (1947), 228 N.C. 352 (45 S.E.2d 860), affirmed, Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co. and Whitaker v. North Carolina (1949), 335 U.S. 525, 69 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed......
-
Moore's Sterilization, In re
...250 N.C. 54, 108 S.E.2d 74 (1959); Roller v. Allen, 245 N.C. 516, 96 S.E.2d 851 (1957); State v. Ballance, supra; State v. Whitaker, 228 N.C. 352, 45 S.E.2d 860 (1947), Aff'd, 335 U.S. 525, 69 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed. 212 (1949). The traditional substantive due process test has been that a statu......
-
American Federation of Labor v. American Sash & Door Co., 5028
...right of either side, or any faction of any side, to a labor controversy to assemble and publicize its own ideas remains inviolate." State v. Whitaker, supra. the foregoing reasons we hold that the Amendment in nowise violates the constitutional rights of freedom of speech or assembly. Pros......
-
Dayton Co. v. Carpet, Linoleum and Resilient Fl. D., Etc.
...these laws have been unsatisfactory to labor and at other times to employers. As the court so aptly remarked in State v. Whitaker, 228 N.C. 352, 361, 45 S.E.2d 860, 866: "Until recently, the struggle between management and labor has been demonstrably one-sided with Anglo-American law favori......