Carpenter v. Boyles

Decision Date04 May 1938
Docket NumberNo. 521.,521.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesCARPENTER, Solicitor. v. BOYLES.

[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Wilson Warlick, Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of John G. Carpenter, Solicitor of the Fourteenth Judicial District, against Dr. M. F. Boyles, trading and doing business as Greenwich Village, to perpetually enjoin and restrain defendant from maintaining and operating Greenwich Village on the ground that it constitutes a public nuisance. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

No error.

The complaint of plaintiff is as follows:

"Plaintiff's relator, John G. Carpenter, Solicitor of the Fourteenth Judicial District of North Carolina, complaining of the defendant, alleges:

"1. That plaintiff's relator is now and was at the time hereinafter mentioned the duly elected, qualified and acting Solicitor of the Fourteenth Judicial District, State of North Carolina, and is a citizen and resident of Gaston County, North Caro lina, which said county is in said Fourteenth Judicial District.

"2. That the defendant is a resident and citizen of Mecklenburg County, N. C.

"3. That the defendant owns and operates a place of business on United States Highway No. 74, known as Wilkinson Boulevard, which said place of business is called 'Greenwich Village' and is several miles west of the City of Charlotte; that upon information and belief said defendant is the owner and proprietor of said business and has been for some time.

"4. That said place of business known as 'Greenwich Village', owned and operated by the defendant herein is located in a thickly populated rural community; but there is a great deal of traffic continually passing said place of business; that the neighborhood and vicinity of the 'Greenwich Village' is thickly populated and the activities incidental to the operation of the said business by the defendant are easily seen and observed by citizens traversing said highway, and other residents and citizens in the immediate vicinity thereof.

"5. That upon information and belief said business known as 'Greenwich Village' has been operated and is being operated by the defendant herein in such a way as to constitute a public nuisance and an affront to public morals and decency; that upon information and belief the defendant, his agents and servants, have been and are now engaged in the business of selling liquor unlawfully and in large quantities; that upon the said premises are several cabins, which are flagrantly used by persons of low repute for the purposes of adultery, assignation, prostitution, lewdness and immorality; that the activities incidental to the business of the defendant in the illegal sale of whiskey and other intoxicants, in the drunkenness, boisterous and disorderly conduct upon said premises, and in the flagrant violation of morality upon said premises have disturbed and affronted decent citizens of Mecklenburg County, and are a menace to public morals; that the defendant has been operating and engaged in said business known as 'Greenwich Village' in such a way as to constitute a public nuisance; that unless said public nuisance is abated the users of the highway and the public generally will continue to be injuriously affected by the intolerable conditions existing in, around, and adjacent to the said establishment of the defendant.

"6. That the buildings, erections and premises, where business is carried on, and the tract of land upon which said buildings are located, together with said business, furniture, fixtures, money, merchandise, stock of goods, and other personal property of the defendant, which may be found in and about the said 'Greenwich Village', constitute a general public nuisance, and in the interest of public morals and decency should be abated.

"Wherefore, your relator prays: --

"1. For an order perpetually enjoining and restraining the defendant from maintaining and operating said 'Greenwich Village' to the end that said public nuisance arising therefrom may be abated; that all fixtures, furniture, musical instruments, personal or movable property used in connection with the said public nuisance shall be removed from the building in which said business is carried on, and that said furniture, and fixtures, and other personal or movable property be sold as by law provided.

"2. That the building in which said business is carried on be ordered closed against their use by the defendant, or any other person or persons, and that they be kept closed for a period of one year unless sooner released, and that the defendant be restrained from leasing said building to any other person or persons, firm or corporation, pending the further orders of this Court, for a period of one year unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

"3. That it be provided in said order that the officer moving and selling the movable property be allowed the same fees as he would have been allowed for levying upon and selling like property under execution, and that the officer closing the premises and keeping them closed be allowed a reasonable sum by the Court for such services.

"4. That but of the proceeds of the sale of the furniture, fixtures and other movable property, the plaintiff be allowed the costs of this action, including a reasonable attorneys fee, and the balance, if any there be, be paid to the defendant herein.

"5. For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. Ralph V. Kidd; Uhlman S. Alexander, Attys.

"Verified Sept. 15, 1937 by John G. Carpenter, Solicitor, etc."

The defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and prayed that the temporary order closing his business be dissolved. A temporary restraining order was issued on the verified complaint and affidavits and on the hearing the injunction was continued to the final hearing. The entire place was padlocked until the final hearing, without bond, and the matter was set for trial on October 12, 1937.

On the trial the issue submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows: "Has the defendant conducted and operated the place of business known as 'Greenwich Village' in such a way as to constitute a nuisance? Ans: Yes."

The evidence was to the effect:

Jake Culp, a rural policeman, testified, in part: "The reputation of Greenwich Village is bad. I know where it is located. I have had several occasions to go there and also have had several occasions to be called there. On some occasions we found a bunch of drunks fighting and locked up 4 or 5 of them. On several occasions we searched the cabins and got couples out of them and found several pints of liquor there. The couples we got there were nude men and women. I have been there on several different occasions when fighting was going on. I know Dr. Boyles. On some occasions we saw him there when we went there, also John Bingham and colored boys who work there, and another white fellow. Greenwich Village is located two and a half or three miles from Charlotte, on the Wilkinson Boulevard. On the front is a service station, dance hall and barbecue place. Behind it is one line of cabins. You can drive your car on the left and go in the cabins. They have one line of cabins further back, built the same way. The cabins are all at the rear of the main building. There is a dance hall in the front part of the building." J. V. Hamilton, a rural policeman corroborated Culp.

Mrs. M. P. Randall testified, in part: "I live on Wilkinson Boulevard about 100 feet opposite Greenwich Village, across the street from it. The reputation of Greenwich Village is bad. It opened October 18th, last year, and the morning of the 30th I went over and talked with the man who was running the place, do not know his name. He was in Greenwich Village, said he was in charge of the place. I said my children have been woke up continually for a week or more, since the place has been opened, in the morning at 4 o'clock. It was in the morning at 4 o'clock when Iwent there. There was a drunken girl there cursing every breath. There was a drunk person lying there and were men drunk. This girl would let no one touch her. They wanted to take her to town but she would not go. The manager wanted to call the officers. This was right in their door. They said they would take the girl in or call officers to come and get her. I asked her if she was going to work the next day and she wanted to know if it was any of my business. (Objection by defendant, sustained.) She cursed me and cursed the manager. She called him a S. O. B. time after time. The manager told her that if she called him that again he would slap the fire out of her. I have not gone there any other time. I have seen fights and cursing, one after another, and whisky bottles in people's hands. I have seen people drive up in automobiles and go in the cabins. I am not on that side of it. I have seen automobiles drive in and out of the place frequently. They would stay different lengths of time. It has been a continual thing from the time they opened. We have been woke up by the cursing and noise over there."

Cross-examination: "I can say my husband never drank liquor. He is here to testify against Greenwich Village, Judge, I would like to slap his face. (Applauding in courtroom.)

"By the Court: Do not let anyone clap their hands any more."

Mrs. C. A. Yates testified, in part: "I live on Pruitt Street, approximately 150 yards from Greenwich Village. Its reputation is bad. I live on the cabin side from it. I have one child 5 years old. I have heard and seen drunk men and women there nude. They would come from behind the cabins drunk and urinate there. I have not seen them take a drink, but have seen the effects of it. I have frequently seen automobiles drive up there with men and women and stay 40 or 45 minutes; when they would leave, others would come. I have met Dr. Boyles, have seen him on the premises often, day and night. I have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Hunt v. Wooten
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1953
    ... ...         1. That he objected to the admission of the evidence in the trial court. Carpenter v. Boyles, 213 N.C. 432, 196 S.E. 850; Ferebee v. Berry, 168 N.C. 281, 84 S.E. 262; Sykes v. Everett, 167 N.C. 600, 83 S.E. 585, 4 A.L.R. 751; Peyton ... ...
  • State v. Calcutt
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1941
  • State v. Calcutt
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1941
    ... ... roadhouses, in easy access of the soldiers at Fort Bragg ...          In ... Carpenter, Solicitor, v. Boyles, who was convicted for ... running a similar kind of roadhouse, this Court sustained the ... conviction and said in that case ... ...
  • State v. Benton
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1970
    ... ... Bryan, 184 N.C. 235, 114 S.E. 6, 26 A.L.R. 1488; Carpenter", Solicitor v. Boyles, 213 N.C. 432, 196 S.E. 850; State v. Cade, 215 N.C. 393, 2 S.E.2d 7; Stansbury, N.C. Evidence § 55 (2d ed. 1963) ...    \xC2" ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT