State v. Barringer

• Decision Date: 23 March 1892
• Citation: 14 S.E. 781,110 N.C. 525
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: State v. Barringer.

14 S.E. 781

110 N.C. 525

State

v.Barringer.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 23, 1892.

Intoxicating Liquors — Constitutional Law — Restricting Manufactures — Compensation-Exceptions.

1. Priv. Acts 1891, c. 4, authorized the establishment of an orphans' home, and forbade the manufacture of spirituous or malt liquor within three miles thereof. Held, that the power of the legislature to make such enactment is not restricted by the fact that, prior to the passage of the act, defendant, under authority of a license, was already engaged in such manufacture within the three-mile limit, and no compensation is made to him for his outlays.

2. Such act is not rendered unconstitutional by reason of a provision therein making it unlawful to make, sell, give, or transmit to any inmate of the home, or to any person within three miles thereof, any spirituous or malt liquors, except upon the "written permission of the superintendent of such home."

3. If for any reason the legislature had no power to authorize the superintendent of the home to permit such sale and manufacture in his discretion, then such exception in his favor would be void, and the prohibition within the three-mile limit would remain valid, without any exception.

Appeal from superior court, Iredell county; McIver, Judge.

Martin Luther Barringer was convicted of carrying on the business of a distiller within three miles of an orphans' home, and appeals. Affirmed

D. M. Burches, C. H. Armfield, and W. D. Turner, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

Clark, J. The act of the legislature (Priv. Acts 1891, c 4) authorized the establishment of an orphans' home at or near Barium Springs, in Iredell county, and forbade, among other things, the manufacture of spirituous or malt liquor within three miles thereof. The orphans' homewas established at such point, and the defendant thereafter manufactured spirituous liquor within the forbidden distance The power of the legislature to make such enactments is beyond question, (State v. Stovail, 103 N C. 416, 8 S. E. Rep. 900; State v. Joyner, 81 N. C. 534; State v. Moore, 104 N. C. 714, 10 S. E. Rep. 143,) and has been exercised by each succeeding legislature, till now it is estimated by some that probably half the area of the state is within the area of such territory within which the manufacture or sale of spirituous liquor is forbidden. Nor is the power of the legislature to make such enactment restricted by the fact that, prior to the passage of the act, the defendant, under authority of a license, was already engaged in such manufacture within the three-mile limit, and no compensation is made him for his outlays. This has been held by the United States supreme court, for the reason given by it that "all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious to the community." Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 663, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273. And here the legislature, in the exercise of its police power, has deemed it injurious for the defendant to manufacture liquor within three miles of an orphans' home.

It is con tended, however, that the enactment became invalid because the orphanage was subsequently abandoned. It is not necessary to...