State ex rel. Moody v. Stem
| Decision Date | 04 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | 16140. |
| Citation | 50 S.E.2d 175,213 S.C. 465 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. MOODY v. STEM et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Mozingo & Watts and C. R. Parrott, all of Darlington, for appellant.
Dargan Paulling & James, Samuel Want, Sam Rogol, Leroy M. Want and James S. Verner, all of Darlington, for respondent.
This action was brought by the appellant, D. Coit Moody, on behalf of the State of South Carolina, against the respondents, who operate a tobacco warehouse in the city of Darlington, to recover certain fixed penalties imposed upon such warehousemen by Code Section 7203 for charging excessive fees in the handling and sale of leaf tobacco. Section 7197 prescribes the maximum rates which may be charged by warehousemen for this service. In separate paragraphs of the complaint, twenty alleged violations of Section 7197 are set forth. For each of these violations a penalty of $500 is claimed, aggregating ten thousand Dollars.
The respondents interposed a demurrer which raised the issue as to whether or not Section 7203 applies to a violation of the provisions of Code Section 7197. The lower court sustained the demurrer, and this appeal was taken.
Section 7197 of the Code provides in part as follows:
The violations charged in the complaint are alleged to consist of a charge of fifty cents made and collected by respondents as auction fees for the sale of various piles of leaf tobacco exceeding two hundred pounds in weight, whereas under the provisions of Section 7197, the maximum auction fee allowable is twenty five cents per pile of one hundred pounds or more.
The penalty statute (Section 7203) which appellant contends is applicable reads as follows:
'Any person wilfully violating the provisions of section 7197 to 7202, regulating the statistics of leaf tobacco sold, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished within the discretion of the court, and, in addition thereto, shall be subject to a penalty of five hundred dollars, to be sued for in the county in which the offender resides or does business; in case he resides without the State, by the attorney general, whenever he may be advised by the commissioner of agriculture that persons required by law to make reports to him have failed to do so.'
For any violation of the foregoing sections, the act is not only made a misdemeanor for which an indictment will lie, but for the same act a penalty of $500.00 is prescribed, and this penalty is cumulative for each and every violation.
The principle is well established that penal statutes are strictly construed, and one who seeks to recover a penalty for failure on the part of the defendant to discharge some duty imposed by law, must bring his case clearly within the language and meaning of the statute awarding the penalty. Such laws are to be expounded strictly against the offender and liberally in his favor. State v. Lewis, 141 S.C 207, 139 S.E. 386; 23 Am.Jur., Sec. 37, Page 631. And it is immaterial, for the purpose of the application of the rule of strict construction, whether the proceedings for the enforcement of the penal law, be criminal or civil. Any doubt as to the proper construction should be resolved in favor of the citizen against the state. Darlington Theatres v Coker, 190 S.C. 282, 2 S.E.2d 782.
With these rules of construction in mind, we turn to the penalty statute (Section 7203). Its first sentence reads: 'Any person wilfully violating the provisions of sections 7197 to 7202, regulating the statistics of leaf tobacco sold, * * *' (emphasis added) shall be subject to a penalty. As pointed out in the order of the lower court sustaining the demurrer, this section does not provide that any person violating any of the provisions of Section 7197 shall be liable to a penalty. Its application is limited and confined to the statistics of sales.
The section alleged to have been violated (7197) does not deal with statistics. Provision for this is made in the following sections, to which the penalty provided for under Section 7203 applies.
Section 7198 is entitled, 'Warehousemen to keep...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lund v. Gray Line Water Tours, Inc., 21666
...than two years after the landlord has given notice to vacate. However, penal statutes are strictly construed. State ex rel. Moody v. Stem, 213 S.C. 465, 50 S.E.2d 175 (1948). By initiating this action, respondents had the opportunity to plead the statute. Nevertheless, they brought the acti......